Loading...
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