HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.10.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineTuesday, October 10, 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: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and
Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 -
HoranAbsent1 -
3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There were no requests.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft September 25, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft September 25, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the
meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 -
Absent:Horan1 -
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
7. STUDY ITEMS
a.Presentation on Safety Element Update - Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Safety Element Update - Staff ReportAttachments:
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing.
Page 1City of Burlingame
October 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Does this cover the properties within the unincorporated part of the City that fall under the County?
(Hurin: The Safety Element will only be for the properties within the city limits. The County will be covering
the properties in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills, and they are one of the agencies that are in this
group.)
>Is there any interfacing between the County and the cities since our land and the Town of Hillsborough
cross over? (Hurin: The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan I mentioned earlier is led by the County and joined
by the cities. The County, through this process, is also updating their Safety Element.)
>What was the former name of this project? (Hurin: In the General Plan, it is listed under the chapter
called Community Safety. It is essentially a Safety Element but was given a different name. This is an
update to that chapter with additional detailed information.)
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1312 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
second story balcony and attached garage for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and
attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and designer;
Mohith and Ruchika Julapalli, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
1312 Mills Ave - Staff Report
1312 Mills Ave - Attachments
1312 Mills Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The project has been brought up a notch by keeping the tree. It is a big house and beautifully
Page 2City of Burlingame
October 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
designed. The landscaping really helped with the privacy and gave it a sense of place; I appreciate that. I
wished the porch could be a little bit deeper, but besides that, this is a pretty good project.
>I was fine with it before, and I am fine with it now.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 -
Absent:Horan1 -
10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.740 Fairfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Parking Variance for
a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form
One Design, applicant and designer; Arjun Dutt, property owner) (76 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
740 Fairfield Rd - Staff Report
740 Fairfield Rd - Attachments
740 Fairfield Rd - Historic Resource Evaluation
740 Fairfield Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item due to
business reasons. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Provide a landscape plan before returning for the action meeting.
>The office at the back looks like it qualifies as a bedroom; work with staff to ensure that the parking
requirement is met.
>I appreciate the intent to eliminate the parking variance. The house is huge and the property is large .
There are no spatial limitations to not be able to build a two -car garage. On the ground floor, it looks like
there are three bedrooms already. I appreciate the efforts by the designer to open the office and the
library, those are not being used as bedrooms as they currently are. Looking at the floor plan, I don ’t see
a lot of closets or storage space. For a house and property of this size with only a one -car garage, a lot of
people don’t even park in garages and use it as storage. I am concerned about whether there is enough
storage space for this size home.
>The design is nice. I appreciate sticking with the existing home and adding to it. I do agree that the
curb appeal is very nice. I am also concerned about the flat roof at the back. On the elevation it looks
like it is the garage, if you didn ’t know any better and the detached garage at the back of the property is
the storage shed. All the other elevations tie nicely because there are a lot of details into the design of the
home. But the deliberate move to the modern addition at the back with a flat roof does not tie it all
Page 3City of Burlingame
October 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
together.
>I appreciate the adaptive re -use of the house and I like the curb appeal as well. Suggest using same
size of siding to make the elevation look better. I struggled with the parking variance because it seems
like we are shoving the existing driveway on the narrow side and not doing a two -car garage. I appreciate
that it is staying on the same side and that the large Oak tree is in the middle of the other side. But
because this house is lopsided to one side, it's ashamed that the big side is not being used. There are a
few opportunities to work on the narrative with your clients to make the best choices. I don ’t disagree with
my fellow commissioner that storage can be a premium if you have a single -car garage, it is challenging .
Please upgrade the landscaping to match the house renovation as it is currently so unkept.
>I agree with the landscape comment. I love this house; it is very special and has a lot of neat details
on it. The windows and other details being kept intact are still rare these days. From the back, it sort of
looks like a solarium. I don ’t have a problem with the flat roof. I can see doing something very beautiful
and tying in more to the original house with a combination of a slightly angled, low -pitched roof and a lot of
small unit glass. That may pull everything together. I appreciate the very nice job and the re -use of this
structure.
>I concur with my fellow commissioners. From 30,000 feet up, it is a good project. I am fully on board
with it. But when going into the details, I agree with my fellow commissioner about the use of a flat roof .
This is supposed to be an inspiring design and sometimes you see these afterthoughts of additions .
Unfortunately, that is what this reminds me of. The rear box with a flat roof looks like an afterthought and I
regret that because I like everything else about the house. Just a little bit of work on that area will make
this come together. Maybe it is the siding that is bothering me. I am not a fan of flat roofs as a builder so
I would always recommend people going away from flat roofs if they can. Otherwise, it is a positive project.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. The flat roof at the back is bothersome to me.
Chair Pfaff re-opened the public hearing.
>Raduenz: I will work on the flat roof. We are already doing the landscape plan and it will be in the next
revision. The reason we are not using the right side of the lot is because of the Oak tree and the owners
want to keep their hand open to possibly split the lot in the future since that property can be split. We are
keeping our options open. It is in a transitional area since it is right next to a school and El Camino Real,
they are trying to maximize the future on that property. I want to convey what our thought process is.
>I would encourage you not to split the lot because having a good-sized lot is a treasure.
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, 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, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 -
Absent:Horan1 -
11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
12. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No Future Agenda Items were suggested.
Page 4City of Burlingame
October 10, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Page 5City of Burlingame