Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.11.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 22, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and LariosPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft October 25, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 25, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1423 Montero Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family 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. (Architecture Allure, Adam Bittle, applicant and architect; Kate and Rob Buccieri, property owners ) (122 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 1City of Burlingame November 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1423 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1423 Montero Ave - Attachments 1423 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tony Pantaleoni, Kotas/Pantaleoni Architects, architect; Sarah and Theo Wong, property owners) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1548 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1548 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1548 Westmoor Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was not present at the October 25th meeting, but did review the meeting minutes. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tony Pantaleoni, project architect, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project improved quite a bit; reducing the verticality of the project helped a lot; we appreciate you addressing that. The facades are much less plain and much more articulated; these are pretty good changes. I wasn't sure at first about the vertical siding that was proposed, but it's growing on me the more I look at it. It helps to distinguish those elements well. I’m pleased with the changes. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The changes are for the better. The massing has been reduced and the elevations are more articulated. So the project is approvable at this point. >I do like most of the changes, although I'm uncomfortable with the second floor bay window at the front of the house. I’m not sure if that's the right type of bay window. I would like to hear from the other commissioners. Everything else looks pretty good, but that element looks tacked on. It looks like it doesn't belong on the front of the house, but I'll defer that to some of the architects on the commission. >I have that same thought as my fellow commissioner, especially after knowing it's a shower projection . It's a three-foot projection, which is fairly deep and right over the entrance at the front door. Also, the vertical siding tends to elongate it and makes it feel extra tall. It's about the depth of the projection and Page 2City of Burlingame November 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the overall height of it that seems heavy. It gives the appearance that it could fall off the house and land on somebody coming into the front entry. It's putting a little tension on the arch just below it. Perhaps the height and depth of the bay could be reduced; there could be a bench in the shower to help reduce the height of the bay projection. Otherwise, I agree on the other elevations. We appreciate you addressing the comments that were brought up at the last meeting. Chair Schmid reopened the public hearing. >(Pantaleoni: Can reduce the overall height and depth of the bay window.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. >I'm struggling with it as well, but I'm struggling with the fact that the front doors look like they're in the front bedroom and the entry is not really looking like an entry. The pop -out accentuates it even more . There's some room on the pop -out to delineate that a little bit better. A lot of the other pop -outs on the house work pretty well. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the second floor bay at the front of the house shall be reduced in depth and height so that it is compatible with the design of the house (staff level approval or FYI to be determined by Planning staff). Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - b.261 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new food establishment in an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Nilmeyer / Nilmeyer Associates, applicant and architect; Perigo LLC, property owner) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 261 California Dr - Staff Report 261 California Dr - Attachments 261 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, project architect, and Robert and Anna Moser, applicants, answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Jennifer Pfaff: We were early Backhaus fans and we're very excited to hear you're coming to Burlingame. I wanted to reiterate that the building that you're going to be in is Burlingame's earliest theater from 1912-1913. The reason that it has such a substantial basement area is because it was built on a tilt . So, it has a nice long history. It has seen many uses over the years, including bars and all kinds of stuff, so it's a great history that you're entering into. >Ronald Karp: I own a building on the same block and a couple of others in the area. I'm 100% in favor of this addition to California Drive. I'm also representing the landlord, which I also represented a restaurant Page 3City of Burlingame November 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes next door at 251 California Drive. I can tell you that we had a number of other people that we could have rented this space to that would have brought back the memories of Blush or something not as well-desired. I think this is a great addition to this part of California Drive and in our community. So hopefully we'll have Backhaus in our community soon. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a really exciting project and it feels like the perfect use for that building. >I'm so excited for this business and I hope Backhaus can start building soon. Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1215 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Rebecca Amato, applicant and architect; Whitney and Denis Murphy, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1215 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1215 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1215 Vancouver Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse noted that she met with the property owner. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Rebecca Amato, designer, represented the applicant. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >While somewhat unique in its site planning with the flag lot configuration, it's a relatively straightforward project. All that's being asked of us is design review. We tend to look closely at decks that are raised, but in this case it really looks out onto its own property. It affords the homeowner the opportunity to take better advantage of the raised floor overlooking the yard and getting better indoor/outdoor space. The design and detailing of the deck and the area under the deck with the fire pit and the TV screen is going to be a really nice addition to the yard. It’s a nice project and should move forward. >Had an opportunity to take a close at the backyard, which is where the addition is proposed. Not concerned since the addition looks upon itself. It doesn't appear to have any issues blocking any potential views for any neighbors. It's quite a private property and it's very nicely detailed and designed. I agree that this project should also move forward. Page 4City of Burlingame November 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >It feels to me like a sensible and restrained project in a good way. Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - FYI for review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. 1556 Cypress Ave - Memo 1556 Cypress Ave - Attachments 1556 Cypress Ave - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Commissioner noted the following concerns: >Don't find any of the changes acceptable; seems to be a stripped -down version of what was previously approved. b.1235 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - FYI for review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. 1235 Paloma Ave - Memo 1235 Paloma Ave - Attachments 1235 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Commissioner noted the following concerns: >Generally don't have an objection to most of the requested changes, however am concerned with the removal of the outriggers and corbels. c.831 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - FYI for review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a new two and one -half-story single family dwelling and detached garage. 831 Acacia Dr - Memo 831 Acacia Dr - Attachments 831 Acacia Dr - Plans Attachments: >Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Page 5City of Burlingame November 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on November 22, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 2, 2021, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 6City of Burlingame