Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.08.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, August 14, 2023 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: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager 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 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft July 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the minutes as amended. 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 Public Comment regarding Pile Driving: >John Paul Poritz: Hi, I have lived here in Burlingame for 17 years. This summer is a little bit noisier than usual. I know that everyone is excited about Top Golf going in. I know that there are environmental reviews made of all kinds of building projects in our city. I am a little disappointed that it feels that there wasn’t an environmental review made of the actual construction process. The pile driving went on for a really long time to be heard all over the city and during the nicest time of the year when we want our windows open, we have to keep them closed. So, if in the future, when we have construction projects, could we please consider the actual impact of the construction itself and not exclusively the final product? Thank you very much. I am hoping that in the future, there is the possibility for noise abatement if we need to have really loud construction in our city. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1345 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for building height, declining height envelope, and second story balcony for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Insite Design Inc ., applicant and designer; Rudolf Thun and Sonali Arurkar, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 1345 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1345 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1345 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item . Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, designer and Sonali Arukar, property owner, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It is a great looking project. I appreciate the changes made. It looks lovely with the stucco exterior . The windows look nice, and I appreciate the sizing change of the stairwell window. >Improvements were worthwhile. I can support the balcony; it is located on the center, it is not overlooking the neighbor, it is not very large and is within our limits. I can support the Special Permits for the height and Declining Height Envelope given the site conditions. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 - Recused:Tse1 - b.1344 Cortez 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. (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Otto Miller, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 2City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1344 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1344 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1344 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had a discussion with the owner of the property. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >Michael Robertson: Randy described our conversation very accurately. I appreciate the flexibility and the changes that they are making on the windows. That will be a real help. Now that we have more clarity on the fence, we did agree that we would talk more about the fence since the landscape architect was out of town when Randy and I talked. We do have some concerns about what lined up being a taller fence, either replacing our current one and looking different than the other two sides of our property fencing or if it gets put in place as a good neighbor fence, then we would want to have more input on the design of it because we want to make sure that it doesn ’t look starkly different than the other two sides of our property, whether through staining or some other means. As far as I was concerned, that was not an obstacle for this Planning Commission as it is something we can work on with the landscape architect as we go forward. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I was somewhat critical of the original design being flat and missing some of the trims that I wanted to see for this project, and the applicant came back with a really good solution. The overhang seems silly, but it will make a big deal of how the scale on this project works. I appreciate all the extra work done to listen to us and modify the design. It looks a lot better. I can support the project. >I also appreciate the changes. It is a richer looking project. The roof is much better. It is clean but it looks traditional. It is very lovely. Thank you for being attentive to your neighbors also. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - c.1431 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to previously approved new two -story single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Johnny Wu, applicant; Jack Xie, property owner; Han Li, Design Studio Han, designer) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1431 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1431 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1431 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff Page 3City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Johnny Wu represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I want to thank the applicant; they did a very nice job of listening to our comments and addressing the issues that we brought up. At the last meeting, I called out the battens being proud of the window trims. They now seem to be flushed or behind the trim which is the way it should be built. Wanted to remind the applicant that we do not rule on color as a commission but noticed that some of the details around the house are in the gray family colors. If the applicant wants to move forward with the gray stone cladding around the house, that is acceptable. I know there was a mention of the brown color, but not sure that brown will contrast with the dark gray that is in the house now. Again, the color is up to the applicant to choose but the Commission is looking at the style of the stone or veneer more appropriate for an exterior application. Otherwise, a very nice job going back to the originally approved design for the most part. The window mullions look nice, at least from afar. I can see moving this project forward. >Consider coloring the truss arrangement in the front so we could see it. Since we do not decide on color, do not feel that you must make a statement and suggests using the same color to make it blend. I really appreciate the work considering that the project has gone through a lot of different internal changes. >To be clear on the chimney, the narrow dry stack wainscoting might be in the wrong scale. Should you decide to continue forward with the same material, for stone wainscoting around the house, consider a more appropriate scale for the exterior and some color coordination with what you already have there. > For the bow truss at the entrance, consider making it wider because it looks like it was just glued on. Maybe as suggested, painting it the same color may make it disappear. It looks cheap right now. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - d.221 Victoria Road, 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 review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Viren Ahuja, applicant and architect; Viren Ahuja, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 221 Victoria Rd - Staff Report 221 Victoria Rd - Attachments 221 Victoria Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was not present at the last meeting but reviewed the video and minutes .Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Viren Ahuja represented the applicant regarding the application. Page 4City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I would like to thank the applicant for taking a hard look at the roof. I knew what you were trying to accomplish but sometimes when we try hard to save something, we forget how it impacts the rest of the elevation. The elevations have improved quite a bit by simplifying the roof which ultimately simplifes the framing and everything else. I appreciate the movement on one side of the elevation for the bathroom because that too made the elevation more cohesive. The changes are a positive for me and I can support it. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - e.839 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Babak Nematollahi, applicant and designer; Southwest Investment Funds LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 839 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 839 Crossway Rd - Attachments 839 Crossway Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jim Zomorrodi represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Bill Schlotter and Susan Ripper, 843 Crossway Road: My wife and I live with our two young children. Our house is next door to (the northwest of) 839 Crossway Road so we share a fence -line. Since the Dec. 12th Meeting the manager of the property, Jim Zomorrodi, met with me on Dec. 20th, 2022, at the property. On January 10th, we provided him, via email, with our concerns which primarily included a suggestion to frost the windows above the interior staircase and the window adjacent to the range in the kitchen because they will have a direct line of sight to the bedroom windows in our house. Per the August 2nd drawings on page A-4 we do not see any specification to frost windows. After review of the current drawings, we have two comments: One, the existing fig tree shown near the sidewalk on sheet A -10 is actually setback several feet near the location of “New Tree #2”. Where will “New Tree #2” go if the existing fig tree is to remain? We addressed the location of this tree in point #3 during the 8/8/22 meeting. Second, the true north indicator in the plan drawings on and after sheet A2 points in the opposite direction of the north arrow as recorded by the Topographic Survey included in Sheets 1 and 2 of the plans packet. We know the builder isn ’t going to place the house backwards on the property, but this detail may lead to further confusion. For example, the two renderings on Sheet A -15 are illuminated with the sun in slightly different locations, however both would require the mid-day sun to come from the northeast. Like the committee, we have reviewed plans now Page 5City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for the third time. We do this because we expect the applicant to fully understand the details of “Exhibit A” should the committee approve the design. And we expect the city will be responsive should the applicant fail in that understanding. Finally, we would like to mention that during the March 15th, 2023 wind event a 32-foot section of the mutual fence between our properties was destroyed. Mr. Zomorrodi was responsive, shared material costs and covered labor effort to restore the fence in a timely manner . We look forward to construction beginning so that we can welcome neighbors. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider an attic vent for aesthetics. >I appreciate all the work put into the changes. I remember that we were trying to decide but were not quite there on some of the details, this revisited set does address them. The trims make the windows stand out better and the traditional used materials will fit nicely in this neighborhood. Simplifying the windows make the openings look better and stronger. Overall, this is a great upgrade to where we were at the last meeting. I’d like to see this project move forward. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I’d like to see this move forward. >I also appreciate the effort on this. In general, it is way better. What is bothering me is that the vertical sidings are running straight up to the roof without any trim. It just cheapens it. I don ’t want to hold it up because of this one thing. But I think this will look better with an attic vent or some finished pieces there. >It can be a vent in the siding itself or a gable end that you put a band at the roof line and then go with something smooth on the top. >I agree with that comment. It makes a difference with an attic vent or gable end. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - f.1548 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mark Bucciarelli, AIA, applicant and architect; Ken Chan and Joyce Wong, CHW Garner LLC, property owners) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1548 Cypress Ave - Staff Report 1548 Cypress Ave - Attachments 1548 Cypress Ave - Plans 1548 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500’ of this property. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item for business reasons. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Mark Buccarelli, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Page 6City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Consider design consultant's suggestion of putting in pop -out sill detail instead of the picture frame trim. > I appreciate the effort put into this because I had a lot of comments last time. I wasn ’t seeing where this is going aesthetically on a Historic District. This new solution with combination materials and shapes has done a tremendous job to bring this project forward. The materials seem pretty clear. This will be a good-looking house. >It is a great looking project now. I was concerned with the original renderings, but the concern is now long gone. This house fits well in the neighborhood. Some of the concerns that were raised in the previous design did not echo the original house. This one is spot on. >The applicant did a fabulous job working with the design consultant. It looks good. I love that the tree is being kept, it sets in there nicely. It looks as if it ’s always belonged there. I appreciate the effort spent on this. It was well worth it. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Recused:Comaroto, and Shores2 - g.1114 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage 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. (Hillel Benizri, Level up Home Remodeling, applicant; Ramin Zohoor, Level Up Home Remodeling, designer; Vadim Antonov, property owner) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1114 Grove Ave - Staff Report 1114 Grove Ave - Attachments 1114 Grove Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Vadim Antonov and Ramin Zohoor represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please correct drafting error on the railings; right and left building elevations show some vertical elements on railing (should be horizontal). >The layout looks better, and it has come a long way. The proposed materials can be good, but Page 7City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes needs to have the details provide during installation. The Trespa siding looks like a great material, but it is something that uses angles and clips that are different than most materials we see around. Make sure that the contractor knows what he is doing, and you get the details right, so it does not leak. If not window trim is being used, then details should be provide showing how the Trespa siding terminates/connects with the windows. >The black roof seems a little dark, but it is a personal preference, so it is not a big deal. I could see moving this forward, but it would be good to have an FYI resubmitted with these drafting errors corrected so that it is clear when you move forward with your building set, and it is clear where you are going. It would be a waste if these drafting errors cause a mess with the construction drawings and the permit . Otherwise, the changes made it a better project. >I agree, it has very much improved since the last time, but there are so many missing details. It also looks like one type of house on top of another; there is nothing tying them together; they have nothing in common. Consider having the same roofing material on lower and upper roofs. There is something missing that is needed to pull it all together, so it feels like one piece and not two different houses stacked on top of each other. >I agree with my fellow commissioner that it does look like two different homes. It is unified by the simplicity of the design. We do need to see details on how the installation of some of these unique materials are going to be applied. I feel that one roof can unify the house. I’m not opposed to the stucco on the first floor and horizontal siding on the second floor, we see that often. The two different roof materials and the very tight seam pattern on the standing seam metal roof is a little bit of concern. I haven’t seen the standing steam that close together. What I appreciate in the redesign is that we have gotten rid of all the requests for Variances and the Special Permit applications, that is a huge improvement right there. It has come a long way, looking very clean and tidy. It just needs some finishes and details to be clarified. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The windows are a little plain. Consider putting in grids, perhaps only on the top window sashes, and adding a little depth and some details on the trims of the exterior windows. Keep it simple with the roof. It might tie in a little better. >The house needs to be grounded. Suggests providing some detail or some stone that can help ground the house. It feels like it is missing something. There needs to be something at the front. The railings and posts don ’t look substantial. The posts look too narrow and I would like to see them a little bit bigger. Other than that, you have moved to a much better direction. >Study solving the sidings, the drafting errors, coming back with one solution on the roof and looking at some of the scale items relative to the front porch. The columns are not a very strong design element right now. There are simple ways to do make the house grounded even with stucco. It can be a simple horizontal trim that can create a base and it can be an opportunity for a color change too. There are a few simple things that can be done to make this a solid project to put forth which will help in the construction of this project. >For the windows, make sure whatever you do on the first floor, you also do on the second floor to make it more cohesive. >Consider the thickness of the wall to get enough of the shadow line detail if you are choosing no trim around the windows where the siding dies into the window. Right now, the windows look fairly flat. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.442 Chatham Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Michal and Jeff Braker, property owners) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 8City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 442 Chatham Rd - Staff Report 442 Chatham Rd - Attachments 442 Chatham Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Ginger Feretto, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > It is a nice-looking project. I’ve always encouraged remodeling. In Burlingame, we have enough tear downs, so it is nice to see someone trying to work with their existing footprint. The only thing that bothers me is that the front fa çade seems heavy. There are two ways to handle that, and the designer answered it very reasonably that you can ’t mess with the windows because they will go over the threshold of 50% demolition which includes fire sprinklers and sorts of other things. I recommend lowering the windows and give a little bit of relief between the window and the veneer. You can still keep it as high as it is on the post, that could be a nice -looking detail. Around the front left and right windows to where it hits the garage it can be lowered a little bit. Otherwise, I am happy with the project. > I actually like the stone where it is. It provides a nice foundation to this project. If it were me, I would layer the stone out a little bit to make it more dynamic. Given what the applicant is trying to achieve, it does the job well. It is a nice -looking remodel project. Particularly in that neighborhood and area, I appreciate the charm there. It works with that and fits in nicely. I am in full support of this project. > I like the window to the left of the garage. That whole corner assembly looks really nice with the taller stone wainscoting. But I also agree that it seems a little heavy. I can see it go either way. If I were to reduce the height of the wainscoting, I would bring it in line with the front porch and keep the wrap around the column. Otherwise, it is a very nice job. > I like the stone all the way up. I would like to see the detail on the steps when this comes back. I agree with my fellow commissioner, I like the grounding of the stone all the way up to the window at the front. It’s unique, we haven’t seen that a lot. I do think that they will have shrubs on the left side under that one window to the left and it might just get covered. >This is something that will probably be handled during construction, on the drawings both on the rear and the right-side elevation, it looks like the ridge of the gable over the family room doors ends up being higher than the ridge line of the roof that is running horizontally behind it. I know you are trying to follow the same slope on all the roof planes, but, when it is under construction, you would want to have that ridge line up with the top of that roof, so everything is flushed out and there is no strange drainage detail . One would not even know the change of the slope there. >I am mainly looking at the one on the left. To me, it is divided into thirds. I know the rails have a certain legal height, looking at the rails running in between the pillars and the left side of the stone wainscot, consider making it less closed -off and more neighborly by lowering the top rail a little bit for visual interest. >I understand if there is an issue with it being close to the lot line, but I would like to see the knee braces added, if practicable based on the size of the eave on the south side of the garage. Regarding the stone, I like it how it is, but I can see it working well both ways. Consider continuing the stone across the front of the garage to the south wall. That whole garage is very visible from the corner lot. It is very much in front of that property. The braces will especially be noticeable if they are lacking. The horizontal wood on the gable end of the primary fa çade looks like one big triangular piece of wood that is stuck up in there. I’d like to see a little bit of depth there. It could be better integrated into the surface. I do like the Page 9City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes house overall. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, 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 - b.5 Rio Court, 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. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc., applicant and architect; Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 5 Rio Ct - Staff Report 5 Rio Ct - Attachments 5 Rio Ct - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item for business reasons. Commissioners Horan, Pfaff and Schmid met with the neighbors at 1821 Loyola Drive. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Angela Yee, property owner and Lauren Lee, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >Larry Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive: Good evening, Commissioners. My wife, Joanne, and I are here again to oppose the second story addition to 5 Rio Court. With the story poles now in place, we can clearly see that the addition is not in keeping with the neighborhood. When entering Rio Court, the addition will be overwhelming. The story poles at 5 Rio Court demonstrate how the actual structure will impact this cul-de-sac and the neighborhood. The story poles did also reinforce the concerns that were expressed by the commissioners at the May 8th meeting. Some quotes from that meeting made by the commissioners were encouraging to us. The first commissioner said, “On the other hand, I do agree that a second story on this street is out of character and out of scale for this area. I find it hard to support that given how much higher it is going to be than others .” and “That neighbors downhill will be impacted as well from a much taller structure .” The second commissioner said, “I tend to agree with my fellow commissioner.” Third commissioner said, “To echo what my fellow commissioner said about neighborhood, this cul-de-sac has no other second stories. It doesn ’t quite fit. The design of it is lovely. I like the design, but unfortunately doesn ’t quite coincide with what we are seeing on the same cul-de-sac.” A fourth commissioner said, “I concur with my fellow commissioners .” The fifth commissioner said, “I concur with what has been said .” If you’ll notice, none of those refer to any view blockage or anything like that. Those are just your opinions on how a second story will affect this block . A previous Planning Commission had the same concerns when 3 Rio Court wanted to add a second story. They set a precedent that a second story is not appropriate for this neighborhood. An appeal to the City Council was also denied. We have seen dramatic housing changes in Burlingame. As Planning Commissioners, you have accepted the responsibility to use your knowledge, experience, and foresight to determine the future of areas like Rio Court, Loyola Drive and Castenada Drive. This addition would undoubtedly set a new precedent and will allow anyone to add a second story and change the architectural balance now and forever. In closing, with all the concerns previously expressed, along with the view obstructions and parking issues, we feel that the commission should deny this project. Thank you for your time. >Public comments sent via email by Atif Qasim, 2 Rio Court: Hello, I would like to submit a new public comment for the re -discussion about the building plan for 5 Rio Court to add a second story. Our family lives at 2 Rio Court. My prior comments were read at the prior session. We have had a chance to look Page 10City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes at the simulated height of the proposed new construction and do not feel our opinions about the plan have changed. We remain concerned about the second story having an effect on our privacy - being able to look into our back yard. The house would be much higher than neighboring houses and will change the ambience of our cul -de-sac. I have spoken to our other neighbors directly across on Loyola Drive and it is even more clear that this addition will obstruct their view of the bay. We also remain concerned about the plan and the construction's effect on neighboring houses as much of the area behind that property includes landfill and can lead to sinking of neighboring properties. We received a letter from the owners this past week suggesting our concerns in this regard would be addressed but have not seen any clear documentation or studies to address that by the architects. We also understand and are sympathetic to the needs of the new owners of that property but feel that much of the investigation of the proposed new plans should have been considered around the time of purchase . There was at no point any discussion about the plans with us in detail prior to receiving a postcard in the mail. The immediate next-door neighbors at 4 Rio Court are renting that property and will be moving out this coming week. They also were not aware of the construction plans prior to the last meeting. >Public comments sent via email by Jasmine: We are owners of 1817 Loyola Drive. We oppose the second story plan for 5 Rio Court as it will completely block our view. 5 Rio Court is the main home directly across from our home. Based on the proposed roof line, our home will see only the building itself. The homes on our street are mainly single story. This maintains a characteristic of the Mills Estates neighborhood that is very unique to us compared to other areas of Burlingame. Our kids play on the cul-de-sac and would like to discourage additional traffic to this intersection if adding second level means additional traffic/cars. >Public comments sent via email by Saeher Muzaffar, 2 Rio Court: Good evening, I am writing to express my ongoing concern regarding the proposed construction at 5 Rio Court. My family and I reside at 2 Rio Ct, and I would like to add the comments below to those submitted by my spouse Atif Qasim . We appreciate the owner's response to our comments and attempt to address them. However, the following concerns remain. We request that the potential environmental impact be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, given the safety issues associated with the ability of the foundation to support a second story, potentially affecting neighboring homes also. The renovation of the ground floor along with construction of a second floor will require a prolonged period of significant noise and dust pollution along with construction vehicles in the cul -de-sac, especially impacting young children's safety and health. Our other concerns include the impact of a second story home on the aesthetics and quality/character of the neighborhood, on natural lighting from the looming structure, and on property and resale value of neighboring one-story homes. Thank you for considering these concerns. >Public comment sent via email by Justin and Bonnie Li, 1832 Castenada Drive: A friend told us that the house at 5 Rio Court is planning on building a second floor. We have a second floor and appreciate having it because it gives us more room and privacy upstairs. With the extra space upstairs, we have room at the first floor for a large family room and kitchen. This allows us plenty of space for family and friends. Living in Burlingame, we sometimes hear some people do not allow other people to build a bigger house. We do not believe this is right. We think that people should be able to build a home to suit them if the city approves the plans. We support 5 Rio Court to add to their home. >Public comment sent via email: I heard from a friend that 5 Rio Court wants to add a second story. I heard some people do not agree. I think people should be able to build their home as long as they follow the city’s laws. I heard that Burlingame is very serious about the view, as long as the addition does not block any views, it should be good. Homes are very expensive here, so homeowners need to be able to build a house for their family’s needs. I support their request to add a new floor to their home. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a tough one. On one hand, it is a beautiful design, but that is not the issue at all. It has a very moderate height increase. My evaluation of the area is although distant views would be affected because you’d see it, I don’t think it will affect them in a negative way. With that being said, I can ’t get over the fact that it will have substantial impact on the adjacent neighborhood. We have a court here that has no second stories and we have quite a few folks that would be very upset about this. So, there is a great impact on the adjacent neighborhood. I also value precedent. It was 17 years ago, Burlingame has Page 11City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes changed, but not much in my opinion. The previous Planning Commission made very valid points on why that first house wasn’t approved. I feel that I still need to value those today. The third most important thing in my mind as a contractor, I know there are other options. Going up is not the only option. I understand that it is more costly to go out and to excavate, but it is possible. Unless I see a geotechnical report or a structural report that says otherwise, I unfortunately think that going along with buying this property was the idea that you will be limited in height. That is true with any hillside overlay zone. I’d feel differently if there were no other options, but there are. That’s where I am struggling with moving this along. > Consider using some of that garage space. I’m not sure if that is the answer, but I just wanted to see if there is an opportunity there for the applicant to get some of the room that they need. Also try to consider reducing the size of the ADU to try to gain some of the space back. >I can appreciate what has happened before and the single level designs that are there now . However, things have changed in our neighborhoods. In my own block, 20 years ago, was just three single level bungalows. Now, it is three two story homes. In a single block, it might look out of place and that was my concern the first time. But as the neighborhoods are evolving, as I look at other homes in the area, there are two story homes and people have been allowed to take advantage of the square footage. So, I think we also need to be considering how to make it work for some of these people that are in tight spots. 6’-11” is not a big height increase. The architect has done a good job of mitigating that and putting all the massing into the middle and not on the end. I don ’t feel that it negatively impacts the two side neighbors on Rio Court that much either. It is a good -looking design; they have been sensitive as they can. I don ’t think that any of the distant views are being impacted. Today, the reason we have the updated ordinance is to be clearer and more specific for us commissioners to be able to evaluate these hillside overlay projects. We’ve seen several where the project definitely impacts the immediate neighbors and we have denied those applications. The neighbor at 1817 Loyola Drive, they will be looking at the front of this house. They are looking at the front of this house now. I was standing in front of their house and all I saw was the sky. Their distant views are not really changing due to this house . With the other neighbors up the street, they are significantly higher, and it is changing their view of the trees, it is not really impacting distant views. Is it bigger? Yes. Are all the homes we are approving next to single story homes bigger? Yes. I don ’t know if that alone is good enough reason to not consider allowing them to use what the code leverages. In my opinion, I don ’t think that the hillside construction overlay applies to this being denied based on view. In one respect, being able to allow the neighborhood to do additions, it might allow some of these homes, that have been around for 50 plus years, to get remodeled. It makes sense form a return of investment point, because if we can ’t add any square footage, which most of these homes have already leveraged their ground floor, then these homes are going to sit. I am more supportive of this given the work that has been put into it and the attempt to be sensitive in all those ways. It is not grossly tall. They have made an effort to minimize the impact with low roofs and nestling this in as much as possible. I can support this project. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I appreciate the neighbors inviting the commissioners looking at the views from inside their house. For me, the precedent from 17 years ago is relevant, but what is important to me is the change in the code. It is very specific now. It does not say “such as living rooms and family rooms. It says (living rooms and family rooms). To me, when I read it, those are the only two views that we can consider. The distant views of the airport and the bay are not affected by this. I do agree that the design is sensitive, 6’-11” high and set pretty far back from all sides of the house is not going to appear overwhelming in my view. If this neighborhood of single level homes where in the flats and somebody came with this project, it would be approved. The only unique aspect of it is the views and I don’t think this affects the views. >Part of the difficulty is the concern that these pie -shaped parcels do constrain in a number of ways how a building happens. The end effect will be a block, if it is not this home, then it will be other homes over time because they would be more from the side view, sort of a geometry issue. The neighbor ’s home that I have visited, a very cool home, has a lot of livable space and yes, they are going to notice the change. But the roof line is well below the ocean area. I am much more sensitive to greenery; I feel that there may be others that do not appreciate some of the greenery that are large and need to be cut back. The greenery is helping everything blend in and I did not find it that jarring. True, it may change with time when other projects in this cul -de-sac develop. It is difficult. Maybe there can be comments made that care needs to be taken, that there ’s always some kind of a corridor in there, so you don ’t get these big blobs of home on a cul -de-sac. Their additions can be set in ways that people above them can Page 12City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes still enjoy these view corridors and they don ’t have this big thing on their faces being so solid and bulky . That really is the issue. The project has been greatly improved. It is a different time, but the ordinance also did change, it is very specific. I’m wondering how the hospital can be built under the last ordinance, because those are big clunky structures, and all the other stuff happening below. It does obscure the whole shoreline, technically. It is a little fuzzy for me. They have pushed the addition as much as they can, but I am also leaning towards agreeing except that I don ’t know how to fix it for later, that is the problem. >Relative to precedent, it does not mean the other four homes on that court can just suddenly build a second story addition. It still requires a Planning Commission review and to be sensitive to the design and to each other. We are not approving a blob at the moment because they have done a good job of trying to limit the mass of this design. In hopes that if anybody in the future does something similar, that they too can manage their mass and not fill it in and just make it a second story. That is part of having this approval process in considering this each and every time. If every one of them is going to get the same rigor, it is not just that we are going to open a flood gate and approve everything. We need to consider each individual proposal and its impacts to its neighbors, which I feel like we are trying to do for this one. >I have a slightly different take on this. Based off the changes to the ordinance, because it is a lot more explicit, I am comfortable with how the views are right now. Even though I do value the views, being someone who did not grow up in this kind of environment all around me all the time, the impact is acceptable. I do have an issue, not conceptually, with the project but somehow with the execution. It comes down to the way it relates to the neighborhood. There is a difference between relating to the neighbors, to the cul -de-sac, and to the wider area. A defining feature of those ranch style homes is typically described as being single story. However, if you drive along this road or Trousdale, you see lots of second stories. And a lot of those are not technically second stories but split levels or basements that are exposed on the grade. What it comes down to is, does this read from the public right -of-way as something that is part of this neighborhood, that is fundamentally based off that idea? I don ’t think it does at the moment. There are a couple of things; it is not because there is a second story, but right now, the southern walls of the second story come out too far forward from the front fa çade. It does look like a whole second story on top of the house which is the design intent. There are other features that make the effect worse. A lot of the aesthetic of a ranch house comes from the horizontal nature of the way the different features are arranged; like the roof line and all the windows being in a row. There are windows here that are big, prominent, and vertical. That does a lot to distance it from the original design idea and it also tends to make the building a little bit more imposing. I wouldn ’t say that it is imposing, but there are features that are prominent because of that. In a perfect world, we just drag a box over the second story and push it back about four to six feet behind the ridge of the roof, that would make a massive difference. You would be able to leave the windows that are horizontally arranged peeking out over the ridge of the roof. It would be difficult to tell if that is a second story, a light well coming out of a double height living room or a split story. Theoretically, that is a very compatible design for this neighborhood. I am in favor of the project conceptually. I do think there are some measures that can be taken to negate how prominent the second story is and the fact that from the street there is absolutely, unmistakably a big second story. That is how the renderings are coming off to me, but design review may be able to improve that. >If you push the front towards the back to take advantage of the distant view, the square footage goes on the back which will effectively become a single wall. What they have done here is they have put the square footage in the middle to minimize the impact on the side. >That is a good point. I think there are other measures that can be taken to mitigate that. Personally, if I had to pick one side, I will pick the street facing side and not the downhill facing side because everyone is talking about the views from their houses out towards the bay and not up on the hill. Like what my fellow commissioner said, there are other ways to get the square footage in the addition like digging down. They are expensive, but there are other options. If this was getting pushed back, it will be difficult if it was wider. Depending on how the site works, there can be an overhang over the porch . There’s a lot of different options out there. >Consider making the second story feel less imposing, de -emphasize the vertical elements and put more emphasis on the horizontal elements. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by Page 13City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores5 - Nay:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Tse1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Pfaff noted that she had attended the first Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting for the Broadway Specific Plan. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS There was no City Council report since the City Council has been on summer recess. a.2836 Mariposa Drive, zoned R -1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 2836 Mariposa Dr - Memorandum 2836 Mariposa Dr - Plans Attachments: Accepted. b.720 Newhall Road, zoned R-1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 720 Newhall Rd - Memorandum 720 Newhall Rd - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no Future Agenda Items suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Page 14City of Burlingame