Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.09.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, September 25, 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, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent7 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Chair Pfaff noted that she was not present at the September 25, 2023 meeting, but watched the meeting video and reviewed the meeting minutes, and feels comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Schmid noted that he was not present at the meeting and did not watch the meeting video, and therefore abstained from participating in the vote. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Shores, and Tse6 - Abstain:Schmid1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Page 1City of Burlingame September 25, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Application Processing Procedures Which Expand City Cost Recovery Efforts. Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. (newspaper notice) Staff Contact: Scott Spansail Staff Report Draft Ordinance Resolution Public Notice Attachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (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. 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: >Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive: My wife, Joanne and I are here to oppose the second story addition at 5 Rio Court. Once again, I must quote some of the comments that were made on the May 8th Planning Commission meeting. One 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 want to support that given how much higher it is going to be than others. Neighbors downhill will be impacted as well from a much taller structure .” A second commissioner said, “To echo what my fellow commissioner said about the neighborhood, this cul -de-sac has no other second stories and doesn ’t quite fit. The design of it is lovely. I like the design, but unfortunately, it doesn ’t quite coincide with what we are seeing on the same cul-de-sac.” All present agreed. At that May 8th meeting, the commissioners made these statements after evaluating the site, taking into consideration the architectural balance of surrounding neighborhood and past precedents and overwhelmingly believe in their hearts that a second story did not fit this neighborhood and that is a public record. At the August 14th meeting, there was a complete shift in opinion from some of the commissioners disregarding the impact on the future of the neighborhood and Page 2City of Burlingame September 25, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes past precedents. Others had obvious concerns. Several of you are struggling to approve this project. It does not have to be approved tonight. Commissioner Lowenthal stated, “As a contractor, I know there are other options.” Commissioner Shores stated, “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. Consider making the second story feel less imposing. De-emphasize the vertical elements and put more emphasis on the horizontal elements .” I also had two commissioners tell me that “Someone has to be first .” Because someone has to be first should not be how you determine the future of the residents that live in this neighborhood. 5 Rio Court was purchased over two years ago and has never been occupied. We need to take the time to exhaust all options before allowing this absolutely, unmistakable big second story to go forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I initially was skeptical of this project, the height, and the neighborhood. When we had the May 8th meeting, we didn’t have story poles up yet, so it was hard to say how much bigger it is going to be. The story poles added a lot and made subsequent visits a lot clearer on the impact of that view. I don ’t feel that this is a view impact issue. Yes, it adds a bit more height, if I am not mistaken it is 6’-11”, which is a nominal amount of height to add for a second story addition. I like the changes that were made to the windows and other items. They have looked into many of the alternatives we have talked about to try and exhaust them. In order to make this all work, this might actually be the best solution. I don ’t see a reason to hold them back on this. I support it and I think it should move forward. >Compared to older plans, I am happy with the changes. The architect basically made all the right moves in addressing all the comments. Stucco is the right move over horizontal siding. Changing the windows and adding the extra roof peak over the entry are great changes. Generally, that is the best result I could have asked for outside of moving the whole second story which I know is completely not cost-feasible. The comments have been addressed very well and I am happy to support the project. >At first glance, I was taken by the size of the addition in the plans, but then the story poles went up and my viewpoint changed a little bit. In regard to the house itself, it looks really nice. It checks all the boxes that I would want to see in the neighborhood. It fits the neighborhood ’s character, it is just a little bit taller. It is not a lot taller, as my fellow commissioner said it is 6’-11” more. Everything else in the application seems to fall in line. Is this impacting distant views? Distant views of the sky, absolutely. I am not sure it is impacting distant views of the bay as defined in the code. I tend to agree with my fellow commissioners. The changes that were made accentuate the addiction. It doesn ’t detract and it fits nicely on the property. I am inclined to support it. >I have nothing to add. I was supportive the last time. >I want to thank my fellow commissioners who wanted to see the horizontal elements. It has improved and has been made a better project. For the same reasons, I am also inclined to be in support of this project. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 - Recused:Tse1 - b.442 Chatham 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. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Michal and Jeff Braker, property owners) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 3City of Burlingame September 25, 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. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi 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: > I liked it before, and I like it still. > I agree. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair 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 There were no Design Review Study Items. 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 7:33 p.m. Page 4City of Burlingame