Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.03.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, March 13, 2023 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: 883 2397 4781 Passcode: 399935 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 883 2397 4781 Passcode: 399935 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 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 Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and SchmidPresent6 - TseAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Comaroto, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Absent:Tse1 - a.Draft February 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft February 27, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 27, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Page 1City of Burlingame March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments, non-agenda. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1204 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height 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. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Susan and Timothy Fisher, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1204 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1204 Mills Ave - Attachments 1204 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ginger Feretto, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate the attention to details. There are some areas that need a little work on transitions, particularly the stone veneer base goes around the whole structure which makes it not look immensely tall. But overall it is a good project. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Absent:Tse1 - b.317 Occidental Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for a second story Page 2City of Burlingame March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes balcony addition to an existing two -story single-unit 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. (Ella Piecoup, Pho Architects, applicant and designer; Susannah Shimkus, property owner) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 317 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 317 Occidental Ave - Attachments 317 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid was recused from this item . Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Daniel Pho, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Appreciates the applicant including the letters of support from the neighbors on both sides of the project property, that is the best practice and it really helps. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff5 - Absent:Tse1 - Recused:Schmid1 - c.1095 Rollins Road, zoned R -3 - Application for a Fence Variance for height of a new fence/wall along the northern property line of a new multi -unit residential apartment development. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Prometheus Real Estate Group, applicant and property owner) (6 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1095 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1095 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1095 Rollins Rd - 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. Page 3City of Burlingame March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Marilyn Ponte, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It is a nice-looking project. I completely understand the desire to have a substantial and taller fence there. It seems appropriate. I like that they have provided greenery in that area. >I can vote in favor of this with the Fence Variance request. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Absent:Tse1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1205 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for a second story addition and facade improvements to an existing two -story mixed-use building. (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. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she had ex -parte communications with the applicant and their representative. Commissioner Gaul noted that he met with the applicant and project architect. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones, design consultant to the project, 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: > It doesn’t seem like there is enough room upstairs. Please provide a building section to help explain how the project will be reframed and what the parapet will look like. The design work is fine and is communicative but the other pages don't support it. Correct drafting issues so all the working drawings are consistent. >The brick on the front porch might not work well with this type of architecture. Please consider a Page 4City of Burlingame March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes different material to tie in with the color of the building being proposed. >Consider using a different design approach for the stoop as it may offer some interesting concepts. >Suggests using the back as an ADA access to avoid getting rid of the existing Magnolia tree. >This reminds me of the redo of the Woman ’s Club during the 50s on Park Road. A beautiful bungalow remodel where the front and the back are almost two different structures. In this case, the new part is going on the back. Getting past the fact that this cute little house will be removed, which has been altered from the original design and has changed over time, and become this new structure that is supposed to fit in, I think it is not a good design. I am not understanding why the structure in the front is divided into two different elements. There is no change in plane, even if you do a finished piece, it will be completely minimal. It would be nice to see one material in the front and wrapped around. The windows look very large. It is not asymmetrical, and it is not symmetrical either, it is not committed. I don ’t understand why the bay window will be retained because the banding is all gone. >Agreed, the second-floor large window in the front is way too big. I like the rendition on the front page more. The front stair needs some changes. >Please provide materials board to understand what the proposed really look like. Maybe it is the color of the material that is throwing us off, consider going for the subtle look, something that is on the lighter tone so that is will not stand out that much. I need to see some definite changes on this project. >The owner has the rights to fully develop this property from end to end. This is a smaller scale development which is nice. It still has a front setback, and it is not taking up the side driveway. They can go 55 feet high, but they are not doing that. I do like the existing house, but it really doesn ’t fit in that location anymore. I am not as opposed to the design as my fellow commissioners. It is true that the front stoop does not fit and the bay window is not necessary any more, but the overall design is not bad. >When we met previously, I ’ve expressed my concerns about getting rid of these older houses in Burlingame. After further discussions, I came around with the idea of a more modern design. This can fit well. As much as I’d like that little house stay, it really is out of place because of the designs on either side of it. Part of the problem that we are all struggling with is the keeping of the front brick stoop. The bricks don’t fit. The idea of having something made of concrete would fit better. Maybe a board -on-board texture might work there, I know it is not going to be cheap. I like where the project is going. All the other elements of the existing structure have disappeared other than the bay window. >I agree, I am not supportive of the brick stoop anymore, it is not fitting the redesign. I like the three windows on the front top rather than the big picture window. Looking for more clarity when it comes back so we know that the items are being taken cared of and are buildable and that the drawing set will look good. Otherwise, the change is fine, I don ’t have any objections to that. Overall, it is fine, and I can see it going forward. >I agree with what everyone has said. The building fits well with the mass and scale around it. We have a gigantic box on the left and on the right, this one fits better than the current house. In itself, this is a nice handsome building, but it does not fit where it is. This new design is in the right direction. From all the comments we have heard, if we clean up some of these materials, get rid of the brick and have something more that is in -tune with the design and fix the rendering issues it is a good -looking project when all is taken into account. >If the stoop is going away, you may consider incorporating a ramp there and be able to keep the Magnolia tree. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, 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, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Absent:Tse1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. Page 5City of Burlingame March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the March 6th City Council meeting included a presentation of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR). This year was significant because it was the last year of the current housing element cycle, so it was the final scorecard. The city did very well with its overall production: it was required to permit 863 units and ended up permitting more than 1500 units. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner's expressed interest in learning about proposed housing legislation, and possible changes to the Tree Ordinance or tree removal protocols in light of the recent storms. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 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, March 13, 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 March 13, 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 March 23, 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 6City of Burlingame