The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - PC - 2023.03.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, March 27, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Assistant Planner Fazia Ali, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and TsePresent5 - Gaul, and SchmidAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no Minutes to approve. 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 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: Page 1City of Burlingame March 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Assistant Planner Ali provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Nitin Handa and John Mabe, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please fix drafting errors; some lines shown on the roof plan were not reflected on the proposed elevations. >On page L-2, plant legend does not match the landscape plan; please review and fix errors. >Appreciate the efforts made going through the design review consultant. Am a little bit disturbed by the discrepancies with the drafting, the inconsistency of the design as the roof plan relates to the elevations, and some of the design elements brought up by my fellow commissioner. We are not here to suggest design solutions, but my fellow commissioner brought up a good point about the shed roof not continuing along the Left Elevation. There might not have been an intent not to do that because you would then have to contend with the shed as it wraps around to the rear. But if you were to deploy that shed roof along the whole side of the Left Elevation, other than the bump out upstairs, by wrapping it around the rear you’d find a nice way to tie the whole thing in. Suggest looking at that element for a much better solution. >The landscape architect and the designer need to look at the drawings thoroughly to make sure that everything is complete, accurate, and represented correctly dimensionally and with details. >Suggests using proper line weights on the drawings so you have better line definition. Part of the difficulty in reading the roof plan is everything is in a very thin line weight, so it is hard to discern what is a significant line versus a guide line on those plans. It is an improvement over the last version that we saw, but there are still some issues to resolve based on what we have looked at tonight. >Appreciate that the applicant tried to address our concerns from the last meeting. I like the wider porch and the pavers at the back to address the neighbor ’s concern about the tree roots. I do agree with my fellow commissioner about the porch roof. The Left Elevation as a gable roof and the Right Elevation as a shed roof looks a bit off. The gable roof has a column on the right side holding it up but it is floating in mid air on the left side. I also agree with my fellow commissioner about the existing errors on the plans. >This needs another go around. It is better, but it is not there yet. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Acting Chair Pfaff, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Tse4 - Absent:Gaul, and Schmid2 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.1244 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for amendment to a previously approved Parking Variance for a two -story addition to add one dwelling unit and a new attached garage at the rear of an existing two -story, 4-unit apartment building. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (2). (Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Worldco Holding LLC, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 2City of Burlingame March 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1244 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1244 El Camino Real - Attachments 1244 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Alicia Ader and Alvin Chan, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please fix drafting error to show shutters along the West Elevation on sheet A4.1. >It is a very reasonable request and a very straight forward application. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Tse5 - Absent:Gaul, and Schmid2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study Items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS >Vice Chair Pfaff noted that she attended several interesting meetings regarding trees by Rich Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS >Planning Manager Hurin informed the Commission about upcoming Planning Commissioner trainings, including one on May 31st regarding new housing laws. Assistant City Attorney Spansail noted that at the March 20th City Council meeting, an ordinance was introduced establishing a temporary smoking ban in the Broadway Business Improvement District and that it will come back for a second reading at the next City Council meeting. If approved, the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after approval. The ordinance would create a temporary ban on smoking for the public health and safety within the Broadway Business Improvement District. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 3City of Burlingame March 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 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 27, 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 27, 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 6, 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 4City of Burlingame