Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.08.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, August 8, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft June 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioners Lowenthal and Schmid were abstained from this item because they were not present at the June 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, and Tse5 - Abstain:Lowenthal, and Schmid2 - b.Draft July 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Horan was abstained from this item because he was not present at the July 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Abstain:Horan1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. Page 1City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1430 Palm Drive, zoned R-1 and R-3 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a preschool use in an existing church building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Rita Enright, applicant; Alan William Coon, architect; New Life Community Church of Burlingame, property owner) (210 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1430 Palm Dr - Staff Report 1430 Palm Dr - Attachments 1430 Palm Dr - Plans Attachments: Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.713 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for first and second story plate heights and second story balcony 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. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Kevin and Christine Chung, property owners) (98 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 713 Howard Ave - Staff Report 713 Howard Ave - Attachments 713 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because she is the architect for the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 2City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I appreciate the applicant hearing our comments. The change in the rear really does make a big difference, it looks a lot better. Overall, it's a nice project and can see it going forward. >It looked a little strange the last time, but the changes make the project better. The renderings do a good job showing how the proportions work. I appreciate the changes and the specification of the tree, it is very nice. The space is broken up pretty nicely. >I'm still struggling a little bit with the proposed plate heights. I'm fearful of setting a precedent. We've been pretty consistent in keeping the plate heights at 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor. The house does squeeze to the maximum height limit. It also isn't helpful to have the lot so built out with the ADU in the garage and the ridge height being at the maximum height. So, I ’m a little torn about this. It's a really nice looking house, but I ’m afraid that in that neighborhood with all the single -story houses, this is going to dwarf a lot what's going on there. There are some two -story homes, but there are not a lot of them. I'm on the fence with this one, not 100 percent sure yet. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Recused:Tse1 - b.2229 Adeline Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a two and half story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Cameron and Shannon Foster, property owners) (104 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2229 Adeline Dr - Staff Report 2229 Adeline Dr - Attachments 2229 Adeline Dr - Plans 2229 Adeline Dr - Renderings Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Lowenthal was recused from this item as he lives within 500’ from this property. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >They have done a good job with this addition and it's going to look really good back there. So, I support it. >I agree with my fellow commissioner that this is a great little project. It looks like the rest of the house which I really like. It's well done. Page 3City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Lowenthal1 - c.935 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a bathroom in a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Scovill Family Trust, Will Scovill, applicant and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., designer) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 935 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 935 Paloma Ave - Attachments 935 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Will Scovill, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Van Le: Why do you need a bathroom and a kitchenette in a garage? Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I'm not really in support of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) because I feel it creates a nonconforming ADU. Per the Public Works Department, it doesn't meet ADU standards because it's in a flood zone, so by having these extra facilities in the garage it becomes an ADU. So, that is trying to circumnavigate the issue of habitability. It should be a garage or storage, but it shouldn't be an ADU. I’m not seeing why we should be approving a CUP for this. >The application is not for an ADU but for a full bathroom in the garage, is that correct? (Hurin: That's correct. This could apply to any detached garage in Burlingame where somebody could legally add a bathroom. In this particular case, they would not be able to get the garage approved, get the final inspection and then apply for an ADU permit because it would require the finished floor to be raised. In this particular case, the request is just to have the bathroom in the detached garage. We've had some of these approved over the years, even prior to the ADU regulations which made things simpler ., but the application before you is for a full bathroom in detached garage.) >Spansail: I just wanted to add that code enforcement would be looking at this should it be rented as an ADU. We actually have a contractor that monitors that to make sure it's not rented out. The City does monitor compliance and we'll take enforcement action should it be used incorrectly. > On its own I don't have a big issue with the Conditional Use Permit, but the permanence of the story concerns me. The fact that they attempted to put in a kitchenette leads me to believe there's more planned for this unit than currently presented. I don't think people understand this, when you put in an ADU, people don't want to put the kitchenette if it's a part of the formality and the kitchenette goes unused. So it makes me believe there was an attempt to have someone there. That's a dangerous thing if Page 4City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes that's what they're thinking of doing since it doesn't meet the flood zone requirement. I'm not in favor on the way it was done. If it was originally submitted this way, I would be thinking differently but it will be used differently as presented. There are ways around everything and I appreciate what Assistant City Attorney Spansail said. So, there's more concerns about this. >If the garage floor was above the flood zone and it would have otherwise been legal, then I would have less issue. But clearly, the Public Works Department has already made a ruling that it doesn't meet the requirements of a habitable space. By allowing the full bathroom and kitchenette to remain, we're facilitating a nonconforming ADU that will be forgotten downstream. >I totally agree with what my fellow commissioner just said. I feel like we're aiding in something, a space being utilized that is not allowable and with the flood zone issue, this is a life safety concern. Is there any City liability in relation to this if we approve the CUP and should there be some type of catastrophe in the future? There are rules and guidelines. Flood zone and rising sea level issues are a concern. I feel that this application is finding a loophole to address an issue that on its own would not be able to stand. >Spansail: I can address the City liability issue that you brought up. Should the Commission choose to approve the CUP, you are stating explicitly that it's not a habitable place and not something that should be lived in. If they rented it out, it would be illegal. The City is not saying they're allowed to put a person in there. I don't want you to think you should be going one way or the other, but in terms of liability or in terms of the Commission taking action that puts someone in harm's way, the Commission is not saying that someone is allowed to live in here, we're explicitly saying they aren't. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The one issue I have is that it sets a precedent of people in the future doing this and the problem is that we can't monitor everything. Having a bathroom in its own is not a problem, but I agree with the flood zone issues and I worry. We built our ADU and last year when we had storms, I was so nervous about the water coming in. I even mentioned that I think ADUs should have a true foundation because you just don't ever know; water can seep in especially when it's in a flood zone . So, I would agree with my fellow commissioners and I don't know if I can support this project. >I would support a half bath, but not a full bath and kitchenette if the idea is convenience. >I would agree with my fellow commissioner. We have approved many garages in the past with a half bath with just a sink and toilet. So in light of that and to be consistent, I could support a half bath. The shower should be removed and an ADU is not on the table so the question is, if it's a full bath or not. >Hurin: Consideration of a half bath is certainly an option for you this evening since the CUP would be an approval for something that's less than what they're applying for. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. >Chair Gaul asked Mr. Scovill if he would be agreeable to having a toilet and sink but not a shower and the kitchenette. (Scovill: Yes, that would be agreeable. I want to clarify that the kitchenette is a storage area. It's not a kitchenette or used as a kitchenette. It absolutely was never intended to be an ADU. No one ever lived there or will ever live there. That wasn't the intention and there's a real foundation on it . Public Works has been out and inspected the plumbing already. We put a backwater valve on the toilet to make sure there's no backwater that can come in. So the plumbing and everything has been inspected, so it should be good in that respect.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 25, 2022, sheets T.0, BMP.1, SP.1, A.1 through A.3, S.0, and HFX2; the bathroom in the detached garage shall only include a sink and toilet (no shower). Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Tse6 - Nay:Schmid1 - Page 5City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2313 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jeff Alan Gard, applicant and architect; Ronan McConnell and Michele McKenna, property owners) (104 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2313 Ray Dr - Staff Report 2313 Ray Dr - Attachments 2313 Ray Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jeff Alan Gard, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The railing for the Juliet balcony feels a bit off, I ’m not sure if all railings should be the same. It's to use metal but the difference in direction, one being horizontal and the other vertical, feels a little off. >Not quite understanding what is happening with the four upper windows at the rear of the house, the layout is a little bit odd. Please provide a 3D rendering to give some details and see how things are laying out. The deck material is a little bit bothersome. >Suggests removing the transom window and perhaps making these windows a little bit larger to mimic the doors to the right-hand side. That area needs a little bit of work. >I like the project a lot. The rear elevation is becoming quite interesting. I appreciate that the gained space will be under the main roof line and not be impactful to other people. It is a pretty inventive solution to gain that space. I’d like to see this project move forward. >To echo my fellow commissioners, it is a very nice project. Would also like to see a 3D rendering. >There seems to be a blank space between the windows on the upper shingled area and below the Juliet balcony railing. I feel that this could work, but it would be great to see them in a 3D rendering as it is hard to understand what is going on exactly. >I like the project a lot. The window configuration helps to break up the verticality of the back of the house. I am okay with the window layout. >The two different railings at the rear of the house is quite bothersome. If those were either vertical or horizontal, it will be great. Of course, a rendering is always helpful. I honestly like the design, it ’s just that the railings need a little clean up. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.2669 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Page 6City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (David Kuoppamaki, applicant and designer; Grace and Larry Ngai, property owners) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2669 Martinez Dr - Staff Report 2669 Martinez Dr - Attachments 2669 Martinez Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. David Kuoppamaki, designer, and Grace Ngai, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Brett Turchin: I am the downhill neighbor, a tenant and not the owner. The existing deck overlooks our yard; there is not enough privacy as it is. The only concern I have is if that becomes a livable space there will be very little privacy for us. I am wondering if there can be some foliage that can be planted between the properties to give us some privacy. They don ’t really use the deck right now, so it hasn ’t been an issue, but that will be really appreciated. >Mary Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court: The reason I spoke with the owner of the project is because their trees and bushes were blocking my view and then he mentioned the project. I am not really familiar with the project except what I just looked at. I would like them to install story poles to see the space that they are going to build. I am also concerned if the deck is extended. When they put in umbrellas and patio furniture it’s going to block my view. What I would like to know if it is possible for them to put up story poles to see how high it is going to be, how big the project is, and if it will affect my views. >Public comment sent via email by Benjamin Lambert, 2653 Martinez Drive: I strongly support the construction of a second story at 2669 Martinez Drive for the following reasons: Doing so will greatly increase the value of the home and the reappraised home value will flow directly into more taxes paid to support our schools. I have two young children in the Burlingame school system. It is essential that we keep growing our school tax base, and with Prop 13 allowing home alterations is a great way to do so . Doing so will increase the value of my home and surrounding homes, because it will set a precedent that homeowners can expand their living space. A home where you can build is more valuable than a home where you can't. Doing so will improve the street's aesthetics. Right now the street is dominated by generic older homes. A newly renovated home helps bring the street to life and makes it feel more architecturally diverse. >Kevin Slaboda, 2704 Martinez Drive: We would like to second the motion from our neighbor at 1 Toledo Court to have story poles constructed to confirm if there is any view obstruction or not. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Normally in situations like this, I am supportive of putting up story poles because it does help the neighbors see what is going to happen. But the fact that this is not actually a second story addition it is not going to be any taller than the ridge is now. So, anybody who is at the north of this property will not see the addition at all. It will only be the neighbor immediately next door on the right that would potentially see the side of the project. It doesn ’t seem like requiring story poles will provide any advantage to anybody up the hill because it is not that kind of an addition. I would suggest that the homeowners have that discussion with their two most immediate neighbors who voiced their concerns with privacy or trees. It is challenging because one is going to obstruct somebody else ’s view and the other one will create privacy, Page 7City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes so it will be a delicate dance to make that work. Otherwise, I don ’t see any issues with doing this project. I think it has minimal to no impact to the uphill neighbors. I’d like to see this project go through. >Similarly, I thought this is nicely done. For the benefit of the neighbor who commented about another deck, I don’t believe there is another deck at this home. The idea is that the space is completely enclosed so it will be less impactful than what it would have been. However, when I saw the property there were no street trees and it looks barren. It is an opportunity to introduce in the public realm some appropriately sized trees. I’m pretty sure that the City Arborist has trees put in there regularly; within 10 feet beyond the curb is city property. For the purposes of planting trees since there is no planting strip there, I am only okay with this project if it includes some foliage. That will also include for the neighbor below, again, appropriately sized buffer trees. They don ’t have to be 30 feet tall. In the case of the street trees, the City Arborist will know what is good for that hillside area that does not block views but enhances the property itself and all the other properties in the area. I suggest for the architect to work with a landscaper and the neighbor to identify trees that are appropriate and can actually work for in between the properties that everybody is comfortable with. >While I agree with my fellow commissioner, I don ’t think there is any harm to allay the neighbors ’ concerns by putting up some simple story poles just to confirm what we already know. >The slope of the roof and the rear elevation windows are a bit off to me. While I appreciate the intent of minimizing any impacts on views, the slope of the roof doesn ’t match anything else in the architecture of the house. It looked a bit odd; it is a very long shallow sloping roof. It would almost be better flat in my opinion. The rear elevation with the large square window seems very flat. There needs be some work done to improve that rear elevation. >I would agree with my fellow commissioner. I appreciate the effort to not block the views and it is one way to do it. Architecturally, I don ’t think this really fits in well with the house. I am also concerned about the roofing materials that are proposed. The asphalt shingles in a 1:12 slope will not work. You probably have to go with a tar and gravel roof. That needs to be looked at a little bit closer. To err on the side of caution, I too would prefer that story poles be installed because we don ’t know who can or cannot see whose view may be blocked. It is not a deal breaker because it is at the back of the house. I don ’t know how much it is going to impact anyone, but it really does look like an addition and typically I ’d like to see things that blend in with the house a little bit more. The story poles are a must. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - c.839 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling. (Babak Nematollahi, applicant and designer; Southwest Investment Funds LLC, property owner) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 839 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 839 Crossway Rd - Attachments 839 Crossway Rd - Plans 839 Crossway Rd - Renderings Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Babak Nematollahi, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: Page 8City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Public comment sent via email by Bill Schlotter, 843 Crossway Road: Our house is next door to (the northwest of) 839 Crossway so we share a fence line. The presented plans maintain the driveway directly adjacent to our property. This layout is important to us because it represents the only means for equipment to access our backyard should such access be needed in the future. We also appreciate the planned landscaping along the northwest wall of the house that would replace the existing concrete pad between the house and the driveway. We would like the following points clarified if possible: 1) The driveway gate position moves toward the rear of the property with respect to the existing position by roughly 12 feet. However the drawings do not show the current fence. Is the intent to remove or change the current fence that exists between the new gate and the street? 2) The existing garage has a jerkinhead roof profile with gable vents. However in the plans the gable vents have been deleted and the apex of the roof has been flattened. Will the existing garage roof be modified as shown in the plans? 3) There is an existing tree shown in the plans on the front property line. If this is one of the fig trees, please clarify the location as the existing fig trees are setback a few feet from the property line. 4) Will the existing exterior walls that are will remain be supported by the existing foundation? Finally, we would like the development of this property to proceed as quickly as possible. Our children are at a perfect age to watch the construction from our roof deck. If there is anything we can do to clarify our questions please feel free to reach out to us. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I am having a really hard time understanding any predominant style. I don't know what it wants to be and this happens sometimes with some projects we've had in the last few months. I don't understand where it's going. It has the bungalow roof on the left with the shed and it has an element in front that is very tall, about 15 feet, which is pretty aggressive and tall. The windows are all different and it has the elements in the back that I don't understand. Although we have a 3D rendering, it's not holding together for me. In addition, there are no street trees and I cannot find any in the plan. As far as setting, it certainly needs work. The house next to it on the corner is very special and this just needs quite a bit of work in my view. > I agree with my fellow commissioner ’s comments. The architectural elements are all over the board . You have clerestory windows on some gables and you have gable end vents on others. The roof pitches are 3½:12 and 8:12 which really doesn't work well together. That's half of the roof pitch. It's a little bit tall with a 9’-0” plate height on the second floor. That could be reduced down to 8’-0”, which is what we normally see which would help a lot. The proportions of the windows and the styles of the windows are all over the board. This would be a good candidate for design review consultant but I ’ll defer to my fellow commissioners. >I generally agree. On the one hand it's a good looking house but on the other hand, it has all the issues you have described and it comes across as just heavy. It looks like a lot of house for that property. If they have articulated it differently, it would look lighter. If you're going to have a front porch, it should be useable. A five foot wide front porch is not a great width for something that's truly usable, so I would like to see a front porch that really invites people to hang out on and furniture. I’m not getting the use of a second floor balcony at the front, it's very narrow. It's looking over parked cars on the street. I don't know how a bedroom is going to take advantage of a second floor balcony the way that's currently indicated. >I’m finding the fact that the first floor and the second floor are essentially the same square footage . It's making a very tall, large box and everything is very blocked. None of the elevations are really holding together much. The corner elements are not helping since they are tall and just blocked. It looks like a retail store with a house on top. We need to come back with something quite a bit softer to fit into that area especially given a lot of those homes are still on the smaller side. So, I ’m not really seeing a good design right now. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would like to see some details on the east and west elevations. I feel that those walls are pretty blank. The windows are of concern, we have different kinds of windows. This is a great candidate for a design review consultant. Page 9City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Some of the comments made this evening are about the architectural style of this house. That is really the burning question, what does this house want to be? If that direction isn't communicated to the design review consultant, they're not going to be able to truly help. The architect and the applicant need to really think through that a little bit more, so they can at least have the better communication with the design review consultant and we can get a better product back to make it approvable, because I would like to make it a better experience and not harder. >Similarly in order to give direction, the back area with the garage and ADU has a distinct kind of Dutch style. Maybe that's something that could be worked off of because that seems to be staying put and being added on to. Maybe to go off of a style that's already there would be better than trying five others on the bulk of the building. The architect can manage something beautiful, it's just they need to pick something and go with it that holds together. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.128 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - FYI for review of changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. 128 Elm Ave - Memorandum 128 Elm Ave - Plans Attachments: >Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Page 10City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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, August 8, 2022 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 August 8, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 18, 2022, 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 11City of Burlingame