Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.04.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, April 24, 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, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Horan, Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tse noted that she was not present at the April 10, 2023 meeting, but watched the video and feels comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Gaul1 - a.Draft April 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 8a - 1409 Chapin Avenue has been continued and will not be reviewed this evening. 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 Page 1City of Burlingame April 24, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.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 was continued for further review by Planning Division staff. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.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 814 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 814 Paloma Ave - Attachments 814 Paloma Ave - 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. Joe Sabel, designer and Keith Brasel, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Correct the drafting discrepancies shown on the elevations and the renderings. The rear elevation seems to be in reverse. The right side elevation and rendering do not reflect what is shown in the rear elevation. >There may be a roof drainage issue on the new attached garage along the valley; it seems that the closest location for a downspout is across a window and may interfere with the operation of that window. >Plans noted that Bedrooms 1 & 2 have “No Work” but according to floor plan, new doors are being put in. Please remove notation if new doors are indeed being proposed. >Appreciate the one story addition, keeping the remodel and expansion with a minimalist approach to it because so many of the expansions right now are going to the maximum. Although there are not many great examples of attached garages on that street, I can appreciate the attached garage and what it does to the property, locating it further back and not bringing it forward unlike the neighbor further down. That one does not work even if it was a newer addition. >I don’t have any issues with the height because it works in the back, but I am struggling with the roof lines. The standing seam metal roof in the back is not working for a form perspective. There are just too many forms not connecting. The garage gable is not really integrating the garage into the overall, it is Page 2City of Burlingame April 24, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes putting a whole new roof structure and not attaching. The front 3D drawings seem to be holding ok. The rear 3D drawings look over extended that it is making it hard to appreciate if the forms are there. Suggests taking another look into the roof design. It is not the square footage or the height that bothers me, it is trying to get them to work together. This feels like they are disconnected at the moment. Consider altering the existing roof to frame it correctly, that might be a better solution so that it holds together. >I also appreciate keeping the remodel as a single story and trying to be consistent with what exists . The new left and right elevations show different kinds of windows. Consider having all the windows consistent. >I can appreciate the request for attached garage, that a lot of the existing house is being retained and maintaining the look, the finish, and the materials. I agree with my fellow commissioner that the roof can be simplified. The floor plan seems to work fine. I also don ’t have a problem with the plate height request at the rear. Really, it is just about pulling it together and to take the chance to make sure that all the drawings are representing the same intended proposed design. >Suggests looking at the back porch area; make it consistent and level it out to have one big stair going down versus two different stairs. >Consider including a walkway up the front that could open up your front door. >Consider adding some shade break at the sliding doors off the family room at the back because without any protection that window will get a beating from the sun in the morning. That will also help break up the elevation a little bit. It doesn ’t have to be complicated, just a little bit of something to break up the sun. >I would like to echo my fellow commissioners. In addition to what my fellow commissioner said about the garage, the two windows, the bathroom and bedroom #2 facing the roof will be awkward. There must be something we can do regarding the roof lines. Consider putting in handrails at the back patio, especially with small children. With approximately a 2’-8” porch height, as a contractor, that is higher than what I would go. It will look better too since you can add planters and other things there. It will help soften that rough edge. All in all, I do appreciate the remodel idea, not scraping and rebuilding. It does fit the neighborhood very well and to those things I am in favor of. >I like the project. I would approve it as it is. The roof does not bother me. I like the comments about the windows being consistent. >I agree that the doors at the back going to the porch seem very tall and looks very flat. It will be great to add some trellis there. It will look nice and fit the house well. I like the existing shingles and appreciate that you are reusing all that you could. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, 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:Horan, Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Gaul1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that at the April 17, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council appointed Walker Shores as the new Planning Commissioner to replace outgoing Commissioner Michael Gaul. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 3City of Burlingame April 24, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 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 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 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 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 4City of Burlingame