Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.09.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, September 23, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:01 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 Commissioner Comaroto requested that she be able to participate remotely pursuant to AB 2449 due to a contagious illness. The Commission granted the request. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 9, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 9, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, 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 Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 8c - 2750 and 2300 Adeline Drive, has been continued to a future meeting. 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 There were no Consent Calendar Items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1517 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Front and Side Page 1City of Burlingame September 23, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Setback Variances, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Judith Mattingly, applicant and architect; Rupa Bhandari and Sameer Khedekar, property owners) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500’ of the subject property. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item for business reasons. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Judith Mattingly, 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 like the changes. The applicant definitely listened to our comments and took care of them. I liked this project when it was presented the first time and I don’t have any further issues. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vice-Chair Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Recused:Comaroto, and Shores2 - 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 Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she owns property within 500’ of the subject property. >The project applicant nor a representative attended the meeting in person or virtually. Page 2City of Burlingame September 23, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the application to the meeting of October 15, 2024. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.2750 and 2300 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Variance for building height for a new gymnasium and outdoor swimming pool on the Mercy High School property. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15314. (Natalie Cirigliano-Brosnan, applicant; DevCon Construction, Inc., architect; Mercy High School, property owner (334 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit This item was continued to a future meeting. 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.1128 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., designer; Kimberly Wickam, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao Staff Report Attachments Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she owns property within 500’ of the subject property. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer and Kimberly Wickam, property owner, 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: >With the way the rendering is done, there is not enough depth or detail to the front door if it is going to be black. Understanding that the shadow may wash it out, as presented, it is not showing as a front door but a front portal. >Obviously, we can’t control color, but I am concerned that someone can paint the front white. I feel I will have a different perspective of this project if it is painted white. Consider a different material so even if it is painted white, it would still stand proud of the board and batten. Page 3City of Burlingame September 23, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The issue with the colors is valid. It has a very tall look. In some way, it looks like a modern fairy tale style. I’m trying to picture it painted white and it may look very institution -like. It is very interesting because we don’t usually see this style and it is kind of cool. >I agree with my fellow commissioner; I like the project. It is very dramatic. It sounds like this will be a spec project, which is daring. I applaud that it is not the cookie -cutter home that we see a lot here for spec homes. I am a little concerned about if someone may not like black, but they love the house and all of a sudden they paint the black element white. Then we would have another interpretation of a white modern farmhouse which doesn’t go with a lot of applause these days. >Consider playing with a different material on the renderings if it looks right or not. >I echo the concerns of my fellow commissioners about the centerpiece element. Overall, I do like the project. I am a fan of the size and style of windows chosen on the first and second story. That adds a lot of needed verticality to a project that has a very prominent vertical part in the center. Unfortunately., there is no material that jumps out at me and say “yes, do this”. It has something that you have to feel out. >It will be helpful if you provide a rendering that includes the garage and ADU on the side. Also, if possible, a rendering that shows this house from the corner of Lincoln Avenue because most of the renderings are facing the side street, which is where the house is, but it will be helpful to see all these perspectives. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I also would like to see how this looks from Lincoln Avenue. The house is very elegantly and beautifully designed. Going through the set, I noticed that everything is white and thought that this may be a bit overpowering, tall, very vertical and prominent on a corner lot. But when I got to the renderings, I really like that central element as a darker color. It made a lot of difference in terms on how I read the house. I, too, am also worried about someone changing the color in the future or if it is just a material like the board and batten that can be painted. I know that is not in our purview, but it reads very differently as an all -white house versus what was presented in the renderings, which looks like a modern Tudor. I like a lot of it and the elegance of the window. I’m just a little worried about the central element changing in the future and not reading as intended from day one. >(Hurin: Regarding color, a reminder that we can ’t review the proposed colors as part of the design review. Somebody could end up painting the entire house black in the future, it could go the other way. As Chair Lowenthal pointed out, rather than color you may suggesting using alternative materials that can accent the central element rather than the color.) >The verticality is very strong. I am now imaging the house painted all white. The left -hand side was broken up by an overhang, so it does not look incredibly tall like the right -hand side does. Even if it is painted the same color, consider breaking the right-hand side up with a belly band. >I would disagree. The verticality of the board and batten is very strong here. If it didn ’t have the batten, it will be one big flat mess. Because of the battens, it breaks up the elevation a lot more . Obviously, in the line drawings, it breaks it up a lot. Once it gets painted and seeing it in person, it will have a nice texture to it. If you interrupt the vertical, you will actually change a pretty good solution there . With the windows being too close, you will not get much out of it. >For the materials, there are a lot more types of vertical siding with a more solid material than painted wood. I like what it is now, but I can see that being some other vertical style material as well. There is an opportunity there that will still maintain a very central look to it. I still want to see the lines. I don ’t want to see it go away and become big and flat. I still want the verticality to show through. >Consider using a different dimension of board and batten siding for that specific section. Depending Page 4City of Burlingame September 23, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes on how it comes out, it could offer the same definition. There are a lot of options. >I agree with that. There are also materials out there that are manufactured and marketed in such a way that people are less likely to paint a manufactured product. >It will also last longer. Paint will actually fade in time especially in this western exposure. It will hold up better as a manufactured material. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner 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:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.1908 Devereux Drive, 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.(Richard Terrones, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Michelle and Marty Galvin, property owners) (xx noticed) Staff Contact : Fazia Ali All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones, architect, 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 is a very beautifully designed home. The question about the header height, especially with the jewel box detail above the window, that area above the front door and the window adjacent to it seems it is calling for more attention or detail. Maybe the shed roof above it can come down a little bit lower. There is some proportion issue on that part of the house. It feels like there is a forehead that can be developed further or consider a taller door and window since it has a 9’-0” plate height. Otherwise, this is a very beautiful home. >I like the project scale. It will fit in Devereux Drive very well the way the second floor is tucked under. >I like the detached garage to break up the mostly attached garages in that neighborhood. That does provide a little bit of relief. >I agree with my fellow commissioner about the front porch. >I’d like to see a bit of re-look on the front porch part. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. It will be interesting to look at proposed changes at the front of Page 5City of Burlingame September 23, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the house. Otherwise, I think it is beautiful. Commission Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, 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 There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Page 6City of Burlingame