Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2023.04.24Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers/Online7:00 PMMonday, April 24, 2023 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A - In Person Only Planning Commission and Design Review Consultant Discussiona. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this Planning Commission Meeting will be held via Zoom in addition to in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home or attend the meeting in person. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting. To Attend the Meeting in Person: Location: 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 To Observe the Meeting via Zoom: To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 889 9167 1619 Passcode: 854235 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 889 9167 1619 Passcode: 854235 To Provide Public Comment in Person: Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Request to Speak" card located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The provision of a name, address, or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. To Provide Public Comment via Zoom: During the meeting, public comment may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the "Raise Hand" feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to "Raise Hand") during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/20/2023 April 24, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Provide Public Comment via Email: Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org to be read aloud during the public comment period for an agenda item. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent Calendar. The length of the comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 24, 2023. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 889 9167 1619 Passcode: 854235 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 889 9167 1619 Passcode: 854235 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft April 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA The public is permitted to speak on items that are listed under the Consent Calendar, Commissioner ’s Reports, Director Reports, Requests for Future Agenda Items, new items, or items not on the agenda . Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that item is heard by the Planning Commission. Persons are required to limit their remarks to three (3) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Chair. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Planning Commission and, if relevant, the Commission may direct them to the appropriate staff member. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/20/2023 April 24, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 6. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items for review. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items for review. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1409 Chapin Avenue, zoned CAC - Application for a Master Sign Program for a sign above the ground floor and to exceed allowable sign area on an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15311 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Nick Ford, Golden Gate Sign Co. Inc., applicant and sign designer; Cullinane Trust, et . al., property owner) (102 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. This application has been continued for further review by Planning Division staff. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 814 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permits for plate height and attached garage for a first floor addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new attached garage. (Joe Sabel, designer and applicant, Keith Brasel and Marilyn Chan, property owners) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of April 17, 2023 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/20/2023 April 24, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 24, 2023 at rhurin@burlingame.org or 650-558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on t h i s a g e n d a w i l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t i o n v i a www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on April 24, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2023, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/20/2023 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 20, 2023 TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 24, 2023 FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Planning Commission and Design Review Consultant Discussion Background: Design Review for single family residential projects was implemented in 1998 and expanded to commercial projects and multifamily residential projects a few years later. Initially, all design review projects were required to be reviewed by a design review consultant (consultant) with a written analysis and recommendation provided prior to being scheduled for Planning Commission (Commission) review. To make the process more efficient, the process was later changed to consultants only reviewing projects that were referred to them by the Commission. In summary, when a project is referred to a consultant, the following steps occur: 1. Project is assigned to a consultant based on availability. 2. Plans and materials are forwarded to the consultant for review. Consultant is given eight days to review plans and materials. 3. Meeting is scheduled to review and discuss the project, including the comments/direction provided by the applicant. Meeting attendees include the consultant, staff planner, project architect, and property owner. Architect has the option to revise plans prior to this meeting to implement comments/direction provided by the Commission. 4. Architect sends revised plans to the consultant for review and feedback; there may be several email exchanges to discuss revisions or consultant may request a follow-up meeting(s). 5. When the consultant feels the applicant has adequately addressed the direction provided by the Commission and consultant and the project is ready to return to the Commission, or the process has reached a point where the applicant is not willing to make any additional changes, the consultant provides a written analysis of the revised project and a recommendation to the Commission. The analysis may include additional recommended changes to make the project better. Discussion: The purpose of this study session is to discuss the process (what is working, suggestions for improvement, etc.), discuss recent design element concerns, and ask questions/clarifications. Suggested discussion items were received from commissioners and consultants which are listed below. Staff would note that this list should serve as a starting point for the discussion and does not need to be limited to these items. Community Development Department Memorandum April 20, 2023 Page 2  Clarify Role of the Design Review Consultant. Review what kind of feedback from the Commission is helpful and necessary for a successful outcome.  Depths of Porches and Roof Eaves. Porches on some projects have been very shallow (faux porch; not useable). Commissioners and consultants should try to come to a consensus on a minimum required porch depth. Roof eaves on some projects have not been deep enough for the design style of the house (e.g., bungalow and craftsman).  Window Detailing and Construction. Could benefit from an educational presentation at a window distributor's showroom to see examples of current window types, product options and new technologies. A discussion about window installation and trim detailing, led by an architect, would also be useful. Being more informed in these areas would help with project reviews. Alternatively, an architect on the Commission who is most knowledgeable in window detailing and product options could be the "voice" responsible for taking the lead on this aspect of project reviews.  Aluminum Windows. Some commissioners have stated that aluminum windows aren’t approved in Burlingame. However there have been several projects approved with aluminum windows. Aluminum windows and sliding doors are considered very high-end for the most part and are integral to modern architecture. They are not the cheap aluminum windows of the 60s and 70s. They come in powder coated and painted coatings similar to clad-aluminum windows (i.e., not silver metal color).  Second Story Balconies/Decks. Encourage built up wall (solid material to match design of house) on exposed corner/edges of the balconies where they interface with a neighboring property. Helps to provide privacy when the balcony is being used.  Landscaping. A well-landscape project helps to soften the mass and bulk and reduces conflicts between neighboring properties.  Story Poles for Hillside Projects. Consider requiring story poles prior to the design review study session for projects within the Hillside Overlay. This would help to identify view blockage issues early and help frame design changes if a project is referred to a consultant. Staff would note that if any of the items listed above or any additional items suggested for discussion aren’t covered in this Study Session, they can be scheduled for discussion at a future Study Session. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, April 10, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Horan, Gaul, Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and SchmidPresent6 - TseAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Gaul and Commissioner Schmid noted that they were not present at the March 27, 2023 meeting, but watched the video and feel comfortable participating in the vote. The following corrections were made: March 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Page 6; second line from the top of the page : change "pages support it" to "pages don't support it". Vice Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthall, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Gaul, Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Absent:Tse1 - a.Draft March 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft March 27, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 27, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Gardiner noted that Item 8c - 1409 Chapin Avenue and Item 9a - 1212 Bernal Avenue have been continued and will not be reviewed this evening. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. Page 1City of Burlingame April 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1205 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a second floor balcony for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (John Mabe, JM3 Design, designer; Nitin Handa, applicant, RRP Homes, LLC, property owner) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1205 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1205 Mills Ave - Attachments 1205 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. John Mabe and Nitin Handa represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment submitted via email by Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor, 1209 Mills Avenue: We are residents and owners of 1209 Mills Avenue and would like to comment on the Special Permit for the 2nd floor balcony at 1205 Mills. As next door neighbors to this property, we feel the addition of a balcony would impact our quality of life since a balcony reduces the privacy between us and the newly developed home. We have enjoyed over 20 years of backyard barbeques and family gatherings without the worry of neighbors looking down into our backyard. However, with a balcony that would change dramatically . Having been through the recent pandemic, I think we all can appreciate how valuable having outdoor private space is and the premium it commands in terms of property value. In addition, on this side of the block, all the houses on this row, none of them have a balcony. We believe a Special Permit would not be consistent with the four other houses on this side of the block, specifically 1201 Mills, 1209 Mills, 1213 Mills and 1217 Mills. Finally, please consider this: the developer is going to move on after they sell this home, while we will have to live with the consequences of lack of privacy forever. Please help us maintain the privacy we have enjoyed for over 20 years and disallow the 2nd floor balcony. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The comments from the last couple of meetings have been addressed and the project looks a lot better as a result. I am not a fan of second floor balconies myself, but they have met all the criteria and the setback on the right side is more than the minimum required. I am inclined to approve this project. >It appears that the landscape plan is providing vegetation to block any view from that side to the neighbor’s side so that mitigates the issue. Page 2City of Burlingame April 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I completely understand the concern and not a fan of the second floor balconies, but we did pull this project just for the benefit of the neighbor. This is really a better version of what it used to be which varied in sizes. The applicant has made an effort with evergreens, to put plants in. Strongly recommend to the neighbor to put in more plants on their own side. It looks better and it mitigates the noise as well. Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Pfaff, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Gaul, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid5 - Absent:Tse1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.1205 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for a second floor addition and facade improvements to an existing two -story mixed-use building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(2). (Stanford Chiang, CM Construction, applicant and designer; Anna Chan, property owner) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1205 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1205 Howard Ave - Attachments 1205 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Would like to see a landscape plan to show that shrubs are placed at the bottom of the new stairs landing. >On the left elevation, consider dropping the dark brown piece to the bottom of the window to align with the window to the left by the stairwell. >The project looks great. Appreciate what the applicant has done in response to the comments we ’ve had. The front of the building looks remarkably different and better. I like the louvers on the windows, they are a neat detail. The windows look much better and more aligned. I like the difference in materials, depth, and heights. It hits the modern theme of the street. Unfortunately, some of the other boxed buildings are not as interesting as this. It adds a lot of interest, and I am in favor of this project. >I appreciate the changes as well. The whole package looks a lot more thought of and consistent all the way through. I would not lower the wood; I like the half window on the left because it gives you unintentional shading to some degree. If you lower it, you will have to lower too much to hit anything appreciable and then it will get in the way of other things. I appreciate the new entry. I did not feel that the old bricks there were working with the new design intent. I like the project and appreciate the extra effort Page 3City of Burlingame April 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes put into the drawings. >Nice job; it was like day and night. It is not a deal breaker, but I am very interested in proportions, you might just want to fiddle with that. I may not know enough about construction, particularly with the aluminum product, I can see how this may look cool with the windows on the left side, but it would be sad for it to just be cut off. There was a flashing at the top that was shown on the rendering, it would be nice to be painted the same color to make it feel more complete. I really appreciate the improvements made. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application with the following added condition. >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI application for Planning Commission review of a landscape plan. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Gaul, Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Absent:Tse1 - c.1409 Chapin Avenue, zoned CAC - Application for a Master Sign Program for a sign above the ground floor and to exceed allowable sign area on an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15311 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Nick Ford, Golden Gate Sign Co. Inc., applicant and sign designer; Cullinane Trust, et. al., property owner) (102 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin This application has been continued at the request of the applicant. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1212 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single -unit dwelling with an attached garage. (Elaine Lee, Elaine Lee Design, applicant and designer; Monica Seaney and Sergey Sokolov, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao This application has been continued for further review by Planning Division staff 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner noted that at April 3, 2023 City Council meeting, there was an overview presentation of the Town Square project. We are now in the construction document phase which is the last design phase before construction commences. The presentation is available in video format; the presentation slides are available at www.burlingame.org/townsquare. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 4City of Burlingame April 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 10, 2023 at rhurin@burlingame.org or 650-558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on April 10, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 20, 2023, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 5City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Address: 814 Paloma Avenue Meeting Date: April 24, 2023 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for first story plate height and attached garage for a first floor addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Joe Sabel APN: 029-015-240 Property Owners: Keith Brasel and Marylin Chan Lot Area: 5,401 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage totaling 1,357 SF (0.25 FAR). The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage, add a new single-car attached garage along the right side of the house, and add a first floor addition at the rear of the house. The project proposes a total floor area of 1,983 SF (0.37 FAR) where 2,828 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). There are a total of two bedrooms in the existing house. With this application, the number of bedrooms would increase from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The new attached one-car garage measures 11’-8” x 20’-0” (clear interior dimensions) and provides the required covered parking for the four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for the proposed attached garage. The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for a first story plate height of 10’-0”, where 9’-0” is the maximum allowed. Staff would note that the 10’-0” plate height is only proposed within the family room. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first floor addition to an existing single-unit dwelling consisting of an attached garage and plate height greater than 9’-0” above finished floor (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(d) and (f));  Special Permit for first story plate height (10’-0” first floor plate height proposed where 9’-0” is allowed) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.78.020(A)(6)); and  Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.10.035(1)). 814 Paloma Avenue Lot Area: 5,401 SF Plans date stamped: April 13, 2023 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (attached garage¹): 17’-11” to porch n/a no change 45’-5” 15'-0" or block average 25’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 1’-8” ² 9’-10” 3’-1” 3’-0” 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear Setbacks (1st flr): 63'-4" 37’-11” 15'-0" 1 Special Permit required for attached garage. 2 Existing nonconforming left side setback. Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review and Special Permits 814 Paloma Avenue -2- 814 Paloma Avenue Lot Area: 5,401 SF Plans date stamped: April 13, 2023 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 1,501 SF 27.8% 2,067 SF 38.3% 2,160 SF 40% FAR: 1,357 SF 0.25 FAR 1,983 SF 0.37 FAR 2,828 SF ³ 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-3” x 17’-3” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 covered (11’-8” x 20'-0” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 covered (10' x 18' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 19’-10” 17’-6” to addition 30'-0" Plate Height (1st floor): 8’-10” 10’-0” at family room 4 9’-0” maximum 3 (0.32 x 5,401 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,828 SF (0.52 FAR) 4 Special Permit required for first story plate height at family room. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: combination of wood, aluminum and aluminum clad wood • Doors: combination of wood and aluminum clad wood; wood garage door • Siding: cedar shake and stucco base • Roof: asphalt shingle • Other: wood gable vents, wood porch columns, and wood belly trim Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for first story plate height and attached garage, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; Design Review and Special Permits 814 Paloma Avenue -3- (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Joe Sabel, applicant and designer Keith Brasel and Marylin Chan, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed April 14, 2023 Area Map RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š P (650) 558-7250 Š www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Special Permit Application (R-1 and R-2) The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. The new attached garage addition will be the same mass and scale of the existing detached garage that will be removed. The new attached garage will be of similar scale as other attached garages on the street. The proposesd attached garage will be integrated with the main house and set back from the front fascade of the main house, and positioned in the center back of the main house body, similar to the positions of the other attached garages on the street. The new attached garage will have the same roof lines and pitches as the main house. The proposed exterior materials, finishes and colors shall match the existing main house. The proposed ptd wd. horizonatal siding exterior finishes and finishes are consistent with other horizontal siding finishes of other house on the street, and are consistent with the similar finishes existing on the street and in the neighborhood. The proposed attached garage's style, mass and finishes are consistent with the existing character of the street and neighborhood. The street has a mix of attached garages mid-building, attached garages in the front of the building, and detached garages in the rear of the building. The existing side driveway characteristic will be maintained, and is similar and consistent with the parking patterns in the neighborhood. The architecctural style, mass and bulk are consistent with the character and fabric of the mix of architetural styles and parking configurations, and the project will respect and match those characteristices by matching the exterior finishes roof lines, mass positioning. And also allowing the same light and air characteristics with similar setbacks and mass postions for hte project. No tree removal proposed for the project. All to remain the same and unchanged. 814 Paloma Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 029-015-240