Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.02.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, February 12, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: 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 January 22, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 22, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not present at the January 22, 2024 meeting, but has read the meeting minutes and feels comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, 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. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR 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 Page 1City of Burlingame February 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner 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 There were no Regular Action Items. 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.1410 Carlos Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, applicant and designer; Neda Hamadani and Bahram Razani, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1410 Carlos Ave - Staff Report 1410 Carlos Ave - Attachments 1410 Carlos Ave - 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. Joe Sabel, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Bahram Razani, property owner, 1410 Carlos Avenue: It is a pleasure to meet everybody on the committee today. Unfortunately, my wife Neda Hamadani was not able to make it to the meeting. We are excited to become your neighbors. We looked at many places in the bay area to live and we really fell in love with Burlingame. We imagined our two -year old daughter growing up here and hopefully will be expanding our family. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There is a disparity between the elevations and the 3D rendering, the attic vent is not shown on the perspective drawing. >It is not a bad design. Provide a color rendering to help visualize the true perspective of the project . The front is a little worrisome. Hopefully the color rendition will help me visualize it better. >I appreciate the renovation. I like the fact that you are saving the house and adding a second floor. I like the massing and the roof massing works well. I am not a fan of the standing seam metal roof on this architectural style. It feels that when combined with stucco it does not go well. I like standing seam metal roofs on farmhouse style. Page 2City of Burlingame February 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There is something flat about the front. It could be because there are no windows flanking the doors . I like the front of the existing house better. I like that it is a covered porch with columns on either end. It is a shame that we could not save that. I like the existing windows better than the modern windows with no mullions. But it is heading in the right direction. >I agree with a lot of what my fellow commissioner just shared. I also think that the massing is nice, I appreciate that. You have done a very good job with that. Part of my challenge of supporting the design right now as presented is a lack of information on the perspectives. It will be helpful to have a more realistic rendering for us to see some of the details that you intend or lack of details on the house with actual colors and textures. There are missing details. The perspectives really need to show us what the house is intended to look like. >There are several windows along the sides that are not organized. Suggests putting an order to the window pattern on the side elevations. >I see that there was an intent to provide weather protection over the front door, based on the plans it is about 24 inches of overhang. It does not look sufficient if somebody is coming from the rain with groceries in hand needing to get the keys from their pocket. Consider providing a little more depth for weather protection. The height does not seem to help, it is shallow and tall. Suggests creating a human scale to that entrance because it feels a little bit stark, tall, and not very inviting. Please provide more details there. I also agree with my fellow commissioner to consider adding windows on either side of the entry portico area to add a little more interest at the front. I appreciate the modern approach. Requests to have the details carried out thoroughly for us to review. >The front does not seem to be of human scale. The lower roof feels glued on. If it is lowered, maybe we can see or feel something supporting the portico rather than just hanging there, that may pull it all together. I agree with my colleagues that windows on the front would make it feel more inviting. >I agree that the mass and the form work well. I appreciate the re -use of the exiting home and being able to fit the addition into the height restrictions. I am struggling with the modern interpretation because no grids and narrow lines make the windows look bigger. The windows are big, and they are looking at the neighbors on either side. The existing house has a lot of windows too, but these days we are seeing a lot of smaller windows on the side to be more courteous to our neighbors. You have a lot of big windows. >The rendering comment is very pertinent, it needs more detail to help us. We see gutters but we don’t see downspouts, vents, lights, trims, and address. We usually look for windows details, but I realized that you are only doing a cut -in, but I don’t look at that as a positive because it makes all the surfaces flat. I believe that is what everybody was saying about the entry not having too much depth and size to it, so it is not really embracing. The programming works, I don’t have any issues with that. >The standing metal seam does not bother me as much, but I am afraid of a white box with a standing seam metal roof with no trim and details. It’s going to look like a shoe box. I would encourage you to have a discussion on how to make the exterior work a little bit better. That was the reasoning for the question about the coloring and the materials. You have a couple of bands to work with but if you just white them out they will not be a factor and will go away. Adding human scale into the drawings will help break up some of the bigger pieces and provide details on how those things will work. Even adding the attic vent to the drawings consistently will at least provide a visual cue to the home. >I have seen a lot of designs that are taking the craftsman being updated to a more contemporary home. This is a good take on that overall. It is better to lean more towards keeping in line with a meaningful design or lean towards a newer, more modern clean interpretation. The issues come when you try to go down the middle and you get things where they don ’t belong in the same building. There is more work to be done on the primary fa çade. I don’t know if the existing columns would look good to stay as they are, but taking influence from those columns whether they stay in that location or adding them to the side of the door where they can look like supports for the portico is a good idea. There are lots of simplified versions like pilaster that will come out really well. >I also agree that without any kind of divided or simulated divided lights the windows will look large . This exact pattern will look especially dated if it is carried directly over. Not advocating for that specifically, but even just one over one double -hung might look better in this scenario, just something to make them look not quite so large. I don ’t have a particular problem with the standing seam metal roof, it may come out okay on this one. >Walking around the neighborhood, almost every house has grids on the windows. I feel that removing them in this house will stand out more. I agree with my fellow commissioner, I am not a big fan Page 3City of Burlingame February 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of standing seam metal roof in this kind of architecture, but that is subjective. It will be more obvious with the windows that are without grids. You don ’t want it to be too stark especially with traditional homes all around that neighborhood. Provide some additional details. Otherwise, I can see it moving forward to Regular Action. >We are moving it forward but that does not mean we are saying we like it as it is. There’s a lot of good things about it, but there is a lot to do to get through the next meeting. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, 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.124 Occidental Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc., designer; Jacob and Ellen Christie, property owners) Staff Contact : Brittany Xiao (64 noticed) 124 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 124 Occidental Ave - Attachments 124 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 124 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item due to business reasons. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. James Chu, 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 really like the project. The rendering made it look even better. The drawings are clear; everything I wanted to see is there. I appreciate the effort being put into the submittal. I’d love to see it go forward. >It is a beautiful home. I agree that the colored rendering gave more justice to the design. I see this one going straight to the Consent Calendar. >It is very lovely; nice job. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Pfaff noted that she listened to an interesting discussion the City of San Mateo had regarding historic districts. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Page 4City of Burlingame February 12, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters. a.1205 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Review of landscape plan for previously approved Commercial Design Review project. 1205 Howard Ave - Memorandum 1205 Howard Ave - Attachments 1205 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: >Accepted. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Page 5City of Burlingame