Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.01.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, January 22, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Assistant Planner Brittany Xiao, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft January 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 8 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 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 a.1409 Castillo Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. This project Page 1City of Burlingame January 22, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Antonio Mora, DTA Architecture, applicant and architect; Sean Cafferkey, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1409 Castillo Ave - Staff Report 1409 Castillo Ave - Attachments 1409 Castillo Ave - Plans Attachments: This item was pulled off the Consent Calendar by a member of the public. All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Philip Yankee, 1401 Castillo Avenue: I live on the corner at the bottom of the hill. The reason why I am here is because of the height of the house. The house is beautiful. It is a steep hill. I am on the low end of the hill; this probably will be about 11’-6” higher than the existing building that is currently there. I have nothing but a small cabana and a 1,500 SF deck in my backyard. With the proposed height of the house, even with the transition lines, there is a bedroom that looks down into my yard. Looking at it, this house will also obstruct some of the views of the house to the right too. I don ’t know if they have said anything or whether they know that views will be obstructed from the bedroom to the left. They usually look out all the way over to the hillside. If you look at the way the houses go up the hill, each house is higher than the house to the left of it as it goes up. This will make the house the same level to the house at the right. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I liked the house the last time it came in. It treats the hill as best as it can by focusing the height away and towards the middle. It does a good job of minimizing the height. Given that this lot has a 10-foot slope up from the curb, it would only be 3 feet shorter if we did not include the higher end; we grant this all the time. I have no concerns about the height and the Special Permit request. It is a good-looking house. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. It is a beautiful home. The massing and shaping are very considerate given the site conditions and the easement. Suggests reaching out to the neighbor to the right if there are any view blockage from the primary rooms at the upper level of their home. We don ’t protect views from bedrooms and such in this area of Burlingame. From the rendering, it looks like there is a large window in the middle of the house that may be affected. Make sure that they feel good about the proposed massing that will be built next to them. Otherwise, still very much appreciate and like the design. >It is an absolutely beautiful home. Neighbors can also consider additional planting if they are worried about a particular area. I also appreciate the explanation by the applicant and the comments by the neighbor. Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Page 2City of Burlingame January 22, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Comaroto1 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2204 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permits for first story plate height and attached garage for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Morris Architecture LLC, applicant and architect; Glenn and Corinne Chiu, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2204 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2204 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2204 Hillside Dr - 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. Ryan Morris, designer, 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 appreciate the renderings; they help a lot. The next level is seeing the material depth. The windows, the way they have been adjusted, helped quite a bit. They look a lot better. Consider the material transitions as important. If you go modern and the windows are set in, they will not look good at all . Consider protruding the windows a half inch so the finishes die to the window, it will look a lot better, and it will have a shadow line to it. >I wasn’t sure of the house the first time it was submitted, maybe it ’s because of the windows and the lack of colored renderings. I like it a lot more now. The window adjustments made a big difference. I fully support the front porch height. I am surprised that it needs a Special Permit. I can find support for the Special Permit at the rear of the house as well. I get the idea for the stadium seating at the back, it does not concern me either. The project looks good. >The project is improved. I appreciate the extra effort for the 3D renderings because there ’s a lot going on in here and this is not one of our more typical homes in Burlingame. It helps us to see what you are trying to accomplish in the area. Consider the drainage on the front porch roof, how you get the water off without getting people wet. Provide more details on that. >Am still a little concerned about the left side neighbor and the driveway. Make sure that when you layout the driveway you are not suddenly above the neighbor on the property line without some way to retain it. >I can support the Special Permit for the heights, they don ’t bother me at all. The stadium seating is fine too, it is a good solution to try and tie the deck and the backyard together. I am supportive of the project. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. Would like to see in greater detail how the materials are transitioning, whether it is intended to have the wood flushed with the stone with a detail in between the Page 3City of Burlingame January 22, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes materials or the stones proud of the wood or stucco. Consider as you transition from plane to plane and around corners. >It has come a long way. There are a lot of things we don ’t know. I am seeing areas that these transitions could also be made elegant with some nice finish pieces. I am somewhat concerned about that. I am having trouble because we normally ask for more details. >I like the house, but the garage doors seem like it needs something cool to be done, whether glass that matches the windows or the front door. I’d like to see more details about that garage door. Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to continue the item and place it on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study Items. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Pfaff noted that she attended the Broadway Specific Plan Workshop #1 on January 17th. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director Reports. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Page 4City of Burlingame