HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.08.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, August 10, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date online at 7:05
p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and SchmidPresent6 -
LoftisAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft July 13, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft July 13, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item because he was not present at the July 13, 2020
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Sargent, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
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
a.10 Bancroft Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a)). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; GTI Properties
LLC, property owner) (147 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
10 Bancroft Rd - Staff Report
10 Bancroft Rd - Attachments
10 Bancroft Rd - Plans
Attachments:
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.2625 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permit for a new, one -story single family dwelling and
attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a)). (Leonard Ng, LNAI
Architecture, applicant and architect; Galen Ma and Tina Shi, property owners) (54
noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
2625 Martinez Dr - Staff Report
2625 Martinez Dr - Attachments
2625 Martinez Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Leonard Ng, LNAI Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Don't know if you have this information and it's not critical, but just curious. Do you have an
approximate estimate of what the overall height is of the existing house? (Ng: I’m not sure what the height
is of the existing house. We have several tiers, there's the lower roof at the garage and then steps up a bit
on the left side. I would say it's in the 10’ to 12’ range, between those two.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>The main outstanding issue with the majority of the Commission was the height and the view issue
relative to the Hillside Area Construction Permit. We can make the findings for the Special Permit for the
attached garage, since it's similar to the pattern of the neighborhood. From a design review stand -point,
the project is supportable. It is scaled and detailed to many of the Eichler homes in the neighborhood, it's
similar in scale and proportion. It looks like a house, it has a residential feel to it. The project is
supportable at this point.
>The previous issue was the height and trying to make that work with the neighbors. They’ve done a
good job here at rearranging their plans to make it work so that they could do a one -story house. I applaud
the effort.
>Thank the applicant for making these changes and working with the neighbors to not impact the
views. Can support the project as well with the attached garage and feel that this project would fit nicely in
that area.
>Thank the applicant for working so hard with the neighborhood and addressing our comments
throughout this process. The house is still beautifully designed and can see this fitting in and becoming
approvable.
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.1345 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a major renovation and a
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Rob Wehymeyer, Wehmeyer Design
applicant and designer; Adam and Denise Steinberger, property owners) (93 noticed)
Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1345 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1345 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1345 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he spoke with the
applicant about the material changes.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Based on the mechanical equipment ordinance, where can air conditioning units be located? (Hurin:
Air conditioners may be placed along the side of the house as long as they are located within the rear 75%
of the lot, and as long as they are not between the front of the house and the front property line. Typically,
the rear 75% starts at the front of the house.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>The air conditioning units fall into the locations that we have approved. Is there going to be a fence or
some screening? (Wehmeyer: Yes. On the south side of the property, the driveway is steep and it goes up
further. There's a two-and-a-half foot retaining wall at that point where the front of the house lines up with
their driveway. The wall is technically on the neighbor ’s property. The intent is to put a gate from the street
so the whole view, along the side of the property and the planting beds that the homeowner installed, won't
be seen because it's going to be blocked off with a fence. It minimizes the entire look from the front .
We're going to replicate that on the north side of the house with a similar gate to close that off to the back
as well.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Looking at the stone, it may give some scale but can understand the argument from the applicant that
the stone might make it look like a third story. What they've done looks good and enhances the project .
A lot of the wood is going to get covered with landscaping, but it works rather well in terms of bringing
some scale and detail to the house. Always a little bit nervous about exactly what kind of stone is going
to get put on a project when stone is proposed as a base to a house. It's very easy to pick a stone that's
not natural, that's not indigenous to the area to help make it look natural or like it might be from the local
area. Can support the project, and it's approvable with the changes that have been made.
>Wasn't a part of the original approval of the design, but having been there today during my visit, the
step back on the front yard using the wood works well together. It's a very nice looking project and the
solution would be very approvable.
>Just wanted to reiterate that the project needs to have the gates on the side just for the security of the
property. As a general comment to the applicant and anybody else who might be listening, we're always a
little bit hesitant when we get these changes and they've already been done. The project looks better as it
has been presented to us today and as it's finished. The wood planter or retaining wall in the front are
better than the stone, they're much softer. However, if it was something that we disagreed with, it puts the
applicant and the property owner in a really bad situation. When these changes come about and they
require approval, we encourage developers and homeowners to come to us before it happens so we don't
have to make tough decisions.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.887 Mitten Road, zoned I /I - Application for Commercial Design Review for substantial
construction and a second story addition to an existing commercial building, Conditional
Use Permit for floor area ratio, and Parking Variance. This project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (D. Michael Kastrop, AIA, The Kastrop,
Inc., applicant and architect; Steve Porter, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
887 Mitten Rd - Staff Report
887 Mitten Rd - Attachments
887 Mitten Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Michael Kastrop, The Kastrop Inc., represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions or comments.
Public Comments:
>Comment sent via e-mail by Phyllis Lee, McCarthy LLP: Professional Peninsula Properties is in favor .
Thank you.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Thank the applicant for submitting the colored renderings and elevations. This was a well -crafted
design and is even further visable with the revised drawings that you submitted. The project is well
designed. The variances are understandable based on the large volume within the new second floor, so
the project is approvable at this point.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
d.21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a
previously approved 3-story, 7-unit residential condominium building. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Levy Design Partners, applicant
and architect; Xiucheng Sun, property owner) (157 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
21 Park Rd - Staff Report
21 Park Rd - Attachments
21 Park Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Brian Yang, LDP Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Thank the applicant for providing the letter from the engineer to let us understand why the windows
were removed and displaced.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Would again like to thank the applicant for the clarification. Had a couple of clarifications regarding
the window and light in the units.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
e.1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue, zoned DAC - Application for Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Design Review, Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning
Code to allow a multi-family residential use, Conditional Use Permit for building height,
Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction of a new three -story, 14-unit mixed
use commercial/residential building (John Britton, applicant; Britton Trust, property owner;
Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect;) (309 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Staff Report
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Attachments
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - MMRP
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Materials Binder
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Mark Hudak and Gary Gee, represented the applicant.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Was at the site today looking and noticed that there are power poles and power lines running across
the back of the property now. Was wondering if there is a plan to deal with that. (Gee: The plan is to keep
the power pole there. It is shown on sheet A 2.1, there is a little notch in the garage and it was on our
survey. We realized the power pole was there in some of the buildings along the back, so we made
provisions to keep that power pole there.) Will it be within grabbing range if you're standing at the railing?
(Gee: We could survey the height of that and we can coordinate for some of those to be relocated. Thank
you for bringing that up.)
>Noticed that the mail area in the lobby is dedicated just for mail. Have you considered, as this project
evolves, the change to lockers and the need for package delivery which seems to be so much more a part
of multifamily buildings now? (Gee: We have considered it, we have a locked room off the lobby. Behind
the elevator, there's a utility room that is locked with a keypad or fob to allow deliveries of packages. It's
around the corner, no one sees it and it's a secured room. That's what we plan to do with it.)
>There's a rather large three -story downspout on the front wall by the stairway. Any thought of
internalizing or maybe going around the corner on the minor wall? (Gee: There's flexibility to relocate that
around the corner. We could try to incorporate that around the side wall. We can accommodate that
request.)
>Am concerned with the change in the location of the planters that were previously along the rear wall .
Understand that by putting the planters along the rear wall, you need to have a more solid wall that creates
a taller railing, and therefore a taller wall to the rear yards. But it sounds like your team is now more
familiar with what's happening on the neighboring side of those properties. Doesn't the planter you had
before create a buffer so people on the patio are three or four feet away from that wall? (Gee: That was
original intent. That's why we put the planters there to keep the people away from the edge. During the last
hearing, there was concern expressed about the height of that wall, so we removed it to lower the height .
Most of the aerial views we saw in the back of those buildings are concrete or asphalt, and a lot of the
things that are being stored there are used construction materials. It's not really that much of an active
open space or lawn area that you might envision some people using. It's more concrete back there along
the wooden fence.)
>Honestly, I didn't have as much of a concern with the height of the walls because there was a buffer
created with those planters that kept the users up on the patio away from that guardrail. Now, there's a
metal guardrail and it ’s less solid. People are going to lean on that rail while having their conversation, and
they're looming over what could be some rear yards in the future. Understand what you're saying that right
now they are paved areas and carports and fully recognize that this is a minor detail that we're picking at .
Generally, this is something that you might think a little further on and talk to the developer a little bit
more. But if that were the case, the change to the planter location could come back to us as an FYI, as a
revision or even just administrative revision that is worked through with staff. It's not a major piece of the
project, but it is a detail that is going to be important to making that patio space comfortable for the users
and for the neighbors. (Gee: I appreciate your input. That was a dilemma we faced because originally we
were trying to keep it away from the edge. That's why we had the planter there. The feedback I got from
the Commission in the last presentation was that they felt that wall looked too massive. We didn't show a
lot of the detail that was there in the landscaping. After taking inventory, we started to realize the wall is
not as high, and we proceeded with removing the planter and adding the metal railing so it looks shorter.)
>Was wondering if there is a hybrid approach of a wall that has landscaping growing over it, to help
soften that view from the north side. It would also work as a sound buffer and a visual barrier from both
sides.
>The building has come a long way, I really do like the project. But maybe you can strip away some of
the detail or the trees and the awning. The ground floor is really great. Looking at the second and third
floor, especially the tower, it's a blank wall with a few windows put in it. There was a suggestion for some
Juliet balconies or some metal work somewhere. Having recessed the windows is going to be great. In the
arch openings you have added those fake downspouts, which is a good touch. But don't know if there's an
opportunity to recess that wall a couple of inches to emulate a railing on the upper floor. The stair tower is
really striking. In the previous meetings, we talked about a Juliet balcony or enlarging the windows, this
could still take one more pass. The renderings make it look great, but you're focusing on the first floor
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and it's all in one plane as you go up, even in the center. There's some articulation with the beam or the
columns as they approach each level and there's the recesses, but there are a couple of blank flat spots
on the front of the building that can use a little more articulation.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Really appreciate the changes that have been made. They are subtle but critical. Really like the idea
of changing the stucco color on the center mass along the facade, it adds to the architecture.
>In regards to the added detailing that has been done, it helps a lot with the scale. Seeing the stair
tower as a calm solid that is reminiscent of the Casa Baywood architecture, which is so striking in some
of its very plain and substantive pieces of its facade. Not bothered by that solid because it's a simple
piece to the facade that bookends, at least on that one side, this overall facade that has a lot of
articulation and things going on. It's a stairwell, so you expect to see some peek -a-boo windows into those
landings.
>In terms of a piece of utility, that long downspout will have more details to it, there would be brackets
and attachments. It could actually be an ornamental piece. Can take it to the interior and will be more
serviceable once it gets to the inside.
>The main concern, which is minor and not a deal -breaker, is to get the landscaping right along the
back patio. Would ask for the architect to revisit that with the developer. If they wanted to bring those
planters back along that backside, they could work that through with staff. Would leave it to staff as to
whether or not that would need to come back as an FYI. Otherwise, the project is approvable at this point
and should move forward.
>I like the stairwell, could have some detail there, but do agree that with so much going on with all the
other surfaces, we do want to be careful not to make every surface a feature wall. Not having seen this the
first time, would also agree that having those planters at the patio on the back may give a little buffer .
Appreciate that you listened to the Commission and you made an effort towards it, but would rather be
seated closer to the building rather than actually using the space right up against the railing and looking at
the neighbors' stuff and /or being seen. It would be more comfortable as an outdoor space to be closer to
the building and take advantage of shade opportunities that the building creates, and make it a nice place
to be because we're hoping that people will use it and not just have it as just an open space.
>We are looking at two dimensional drawings, renderings and want to see this move forward. In the
process of building this project and detailing it out, would like to ask the developer and the architect to
look at the building as it's going up. If you feel that it looks a little blank or a little plain, don't be shy
about coming back and asking about additional ornamentation because it's a big enough project and
appreciate that you put a lot of work into it. This doesn't necessarily need to be the final decision on all
the small fine details. So if you see something as you're building it that you like, please come forward or
try something out that might add to the articulation on the front.
>It's such a beautiful project and you've made such great strides. You've done some great work and
appreciate the changes.
>Would also like to see a little bit of a buffer along the rear wall. We don't know what those properties
to the rear might eventually do, and it might preserve some space between some common areas there .
Like the idea of the planters, but overall, this is a great project. So thank you for all your hard work.
>Would prefer the planters along the rear as well. Like the suggestion about looking at some kind of
hanging landscaping that might grow over the edge that might help soften that too.
> Thank you so much for working through these rounds of discussions with us and carefully listening to
all of our comments. This street side on Donnelly Avenue is going to add liveliness to the street. I like the
articulation in and around of all these openings and am excited to see this project built.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
approval of the application to City Council. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
f.925 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for
exterior facade changes and a second story addition to an existing commercial building
(office use proposed) and a Front Setback Variance. This project is Categorically
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (e)). (Steven Stept, Feldman Architecture, applicant and
architect; 800 Airport Boulevard Lp, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle
Markiewicz
925 Howard Ave - Staff Report
925 Howard Ave - Attachments
925 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had a phone call
with the applicant.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Steven Stept, Feldman Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Appreciate the design and where you are going with it, like that the second floor area is very open .
Have you considered the sun exposure and how the overhangs are going to help with that? Am a little
nervous that it will become a hot box up there. (Stept: The overhang along the east side is a deep
overhang. On the west elevation, we feel that we have adequate overhang for those windows. So we feel
pretty comfortable with the design as proposed.)
>Appreciate your thoughtfulness and the consideration for the parking. It's great that you came up with
a creative solution to meet the parking requirements and your needs. Also like that you have trimmed
back the eaves on two sides of the upper level, it makes it look less like a hat on the upper floor. It's a
bit more crafted and deliberate, and provides you with sun shade. Liked the addition of the softness of the
vegetation along the front too.
>Wanted to thank the applicant for the work done regarding the parking. It's a really great solution and
appreciate you figuring out a way of doing this without asking for a variance.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Always admired this little building when passing by it, glad to see that somebody is treating it kindly .
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Am very impressed with how much effort and energy is going into the architecture and into the renovation
to this building. Really admire and appreciate the design that's been put forth, it's a well -crafted and good
looking little building. It's very honest in terms of how it presents itself, particularly with the sort of
penthouse on the second floor. You've worked the overhangs around to where they're needed above the
roof deck that's on the south side, and a little bit of an overhang on the southwest side where you're going
to get light coming in. It speaks of honesty and it's a nice humble design.
>The variance is supportable. There are exceptional circumstances that the building is built out from
property line to property line, so we have to offer some relief in order for this to happen. The project is
approvable at this point. Thank you for the efforts.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.912 Morrell Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design,
designer; Hao Tien and Tzu Chun Wu, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
912 Morrell Ave - Staff Report
912 Morrell Ave - Attachments
912 Morrell Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Had you considered replacing the existing windows so the pattern matches the new windows? The
windows along the right side elevation, from the living room all the way down the side of the house, look
like those are going to remain. You have more window patterns that are of the old ones than the new
ones. (Geurse: Those windows were installed not too long ago, so that's why we didn't change those out
because those are all existing. We didn't want to create more work than we had to. Therefore, that's why I
came in with the window pattern we have for the new addition. The proposed window pattern lends itself to
the existing, but yet gives it a nicer look on the front facade.)
>Agree the proposed window style works with the design. Don't remember looking at them to see if they
were newer or older. From experience, an addition or renovation like this, the house is going to get pretty
much worked over, but hope that the applicant or the property owners would consider changing those to
match the new windows if the budget allows. (Geurse: Okay, I appreciate that and can speak to the
owners about that.)
>If the windows are matching in finish and style, it can work. But if they're too far different, you might
regret it later. (Geurse: Understood. Not too long ago, they completed an addition at the rear of the house
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and that's when all the windows were changed. We didn't want to change and rip all those elements out
and then reinstall them, it's expensive.)
>It looks like the chimney may be missing on the rear elevation, is that correct? (Geurse: Yes, that's
an error, plans will be corrected.) Is the chimney proposed to be clad in stucco? (Geurse: Yes.)
Public Comments:
>Marianne Saucedo, 925 Larkspur Drive: I'm the neighbor behind them to the left. What's the setback
of the addition? How many feet is the back of the house on the driveway side from the fence? (Geurse:
It's currently 12’ 3-1/2” to the existing pop -out on the lower level for the dining room windows.) How close is
the new house to the fence? (Geurse:The addition would be about 15 feet away.) Wondering about
privacy issues. It looks like there are trees there, correct? Are they planting new trees or keeping the
existing ones? (Geurse: We’re keeping all the existing landscape on the property, we have no reason to
remove the existing landscaping.) What is the total square footage of the house? (Chair Tse: Total square
footage is 2,899 square feet.) What's the upstairs use going to be? (Geurse: There will be bedrooms on
the second floor.) What type of bedrooms is proposed at the rear of the house? Is that a master
bedroom? (Geurse: The master bedroom is staying downstairs, standard bedrooms will be on the second
floor.) (Geurse: Thank you, Marianne. If you have questions, please call me. If I knew you were
concerned, I would have been happy to answer them before the meeting.) My main concern is regarding
privacy. About how long do you think it's going to take to build? (Geurse: If we have a real good
contractor, perhaps four to five months.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Really like the project, you did a great job.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.1110 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and a detached garage (Todd Bayless, Designer; Flury Bryant
Design Group, Matt and Kerry Adams, property owners) (118 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
1110 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1110 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1110 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>What are the fence regulations along the front setback? (Hurin: Fences located within the front
setback can be up to five feet in height, which could be five feet solid fence or four foot solid plus one
foot of lattice.)
>The picture in the staff report shows that the existing fence appears to be over six feet tall, but it's not
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
clearly outlined on the site plan. How does that fit into the scope of the work on this project if it's
nonconforming? (Hurin: For existing nonconforming fences, we generally do code enforcement on a
complaint basis. Since the project is being reviewed by the Planning Commission as a whole including
landscaping, you can certainly request or ask the applicant to address the fence height.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Todd Bayless, Flury Bryant Design Group, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Understand you're dealing with a couple of different floor heights, so that probably made tying this
together a little hard. On the front elevation on the left side, the way the planter boxes work under the
windows with the shutters, it feels like they accentuate the height of the second floor. Was wondering if
you considered raising the pitch of the shed roof so it extends up to the window more and eliminating the
planters? It seems like it would make the second floor a little shorter and increases the importance of the
first floor. (Bayless: So your goal is to make the second floor feel a little less tall?) Yes. (Bayless: I would
think that's something we can look at. Maybe bringing the planter boxes down to the first level would help
to give a little more symmetry as well.) If you could look at that, that would be great.
>Is there a basement to this house? (Bayless: Yes, there is an existing basement. We're not planning
to touch it as a part of this project.) Perhaps staff can give direction here, but I didn't see the basement
on the floor plan other than referenced through the stairs, so maybe you could connect with staff and see
if that needs to be included on the plans. (Hurin: When the project comes back, the basement will need
to be included on the plans. There should be a basement level showing access to the basement, and how
the basement is used.) It should also include the ceiling height as well, right? (Hurin: Correct. The
basement could be exempt from the floor area, depending on the ceiling height and how high it extends
above grade.)
>Had similar concerns about the second floor windows above the play area and study, looks top heavy
with the emphasis on the upper floor. It's almost as if the windows want to be flipped in terms of scale.
>On the proposed roof plan for the main roof, it calls for “Class A composite shingles” but on the
exterior elevations it notes “new standing seam metal roof ”. (Bayless: The elevations are correct.) Was
that your preference or is your intent to do a metal roof? (Bayless: That’s the owner's preference.)
>Will the master bedroom balcony be metal railing? (Bayless: The railing is actually wood.) Then the
diagonal pattern that you have would be a wood pattern? (Bayless: Yes. It's a chippendale pattern.)
>On the front elevation, it looks like the existing first floor plate height is at 9’-11 1/2” and the new plate
height is 10’- 2 1/2”, is that correct? (Bayless: We’re not changing the plate height. It's complicated
because of the floor height.) So there are some steps on the inside then? (Bayless: Yes, there are several
steps on the inside.)
>Are those first floor windows on the left hand side intended to be closed at all times or open like the
upper floor? (Bayless: They're hurricane style shutters that are like awnings, so it would be partially open .)
Will the louvers open or will the shutters open flat to the wall? (Bayless: The hinges will be at the top.)
>Are you intending the chimney to match the siding on the front elevation? (Bayless: Yes.) Have you
considered any other materials there? (Bayless: No, we haven't considered anything else.) It looks a little
odd with the material up there on the metal roof. It looks a little out of place, would suggest trying a
different material on the chimney.
>On your site plan, there are a couple of notations for 6-foot wooden gates. Are those 6 feet tall or 6
feet wide? (Bayless: That will be the height. We have not done any elevations of that yet. So like you said,
it will be 5 feet solid, and then it will have some kind of lattice work at the top probably.) Is it 4 foot solid
and 12 inches of lattice or 5 foot solid plus 12 inches of lattice? (Hurin: The maximum fence allowed in
the front setback is five feet including the lattice.) Okay, you may want to pay attention to that limitation
on the height.
>Is the ceiling height in the entry foyer 9’-11”? (Bayless: It’s the existing height, it's just under 10 feet.)
What is the height of the proposed entry door? (Bayless: 7 feet.)
>Did you plan to prepare any renderings of this to model the three dimensional aspects? (Bayless: We
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
don't have any renderings or plans to have them done.)
>Regarding the renderings, there are a lot of surfaces happening on the front of this house pushing
back and forward. Concerned about the squareness of the columns on the second floor and on the entry,
and how well that's going to go together. Understand where the surfaces are relative to the existing house,
but the way the elevation reads now, it's a big box. A three -dimensional look at that front would probably
make it a lot easier to fully see how those elements are pushing and pulling, and to appreciate some of
the detailing that may be happening. (Bayless: I'll have to discuss this with the owner.)
Public Comments:
>Sent via Zoom chat: Is there an estimate on full construction time? (Bayless: We don’t have a project
schedule at this time. The project of this size would take about six months to a year.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The concern is we have perhaps a tired and dated Spanish revival style, but it's fairly charming and
articulated. What we're now being presented is something that is fairly boxy. Maybe there's some type of
architecture that's intended, but looking at the front elevation it creates a broad frontage. It sounds like
there is some reluctance or uncertainty in providing a rendering, but honestly that would help. In terms of
moving this forward and getting approvals, having a rendering could help convey the design.
>Concerned about the left side elevation. It's just one big broad gable with the spattering of windows
along that side.
>Have concerns about the scale and some of the materials. It is odd to use a combustible material to
clad a chimney. It feels like a tract home. It should to be stone, brick or stucco.
>On the front elevation, the interplay of the second story windows versus the first story and the lack of
a typical or traditional hierarchy is making it difficult to approve the massing. Not saying it has to be a
pure and absolute style, but looking at what we're being presented versus what's existing, we're losing the
charm and scale and being presented with something that's broad and semi -flat. Don't know if it's a
project that could benefit to go to a design review consultant, but it might help. Have concerns about the
detail of the design and scale.
>Agree that this project would benefit from help by a design review consultant. There are a lot of
different materials here, and it's very boxy compared to the existing house.
>It's such a dramatic change from what's existing, the existing Spanish style house is charming. This is
a dramatic change and was hard to swallow for a little while.
>What’s striking is that the design seems a little confused, like there are so many different elements
and architectural styles. It doesn't really know what it really wants to be. There are too many elements
going on that don't work together. If you look at the proposed rear elevation on the right -hand side, you've
got a pair of casement windows, a fixed window and a round window next to each other. Perhaps it's the
lines of the horizontal siding versus the lines with the standing seam metal roof. It almost seems like
plaid pants with a striped shirt, it just doesn't work.
>Should review the proportions of the front entry doors, both the height and their height in relation to the
porch roof. It feels like it's a massive porch roof with fairly small doors. So those doors could benefit from
being either 8’ tall or the front porch roof could be moved down.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to refer the application
to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.137 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a remodel and
two-story addition to the rear of an existing two -story single family dwelling with a
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
detached garage (to remain) (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect;
Tehan and Subodh Gupta, property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Keylon
137 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report
137 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments
137 Costa Rica Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
137 Costa Rica Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Adam BIttle, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Looking at the roof plan, you have the area past the peak toward the rear as 1-1/2:12 roof pitch, is
that correct? (Bittle: Around 1-1/2:12 to 2:12.) In looking at your rendering in the lower right -hand corner,
as a practical matter, you might want to explore that pitch some more. Don't think it's going to be visible
based on the rendering, except it would be visible at the windows up above. Don't know if there's a better
material. Like the design overall. (Bittle: Good point. I would point out that the existing rear roof that
spans across the whole length of the back of the house is a built out roof. You are correct, we may have
to consider a change in that material, but we're looking to hide that with the adjacent cross gables. Like
you said, I'm not sure it's going to be too visible, but something we'll definitely explore.)
>Do you know, in terms of the history of the house, if the second floor was an addition at some point
previously? (Bittle: In walking through the home, it appears that the second floor and first floor at the rear
of the house were additions. The historic resource evaluation may also provide this information.) This
project is taking an awkward addition and making it a little bit more graceful now with what you're doing
with the new second floor.
>The new windows are noted as aluminum clad. Are the old windows to be retained going to match?
(Bittle: We’re not looking to match directly. The existing ones on the ground floor and around the front of
the house are wood windows and we're looking to keep those. We're trying to increase the grids on the
windows around the side of the house and upstairs, so it's not a perfect match. There is a slight increase
in scale and update in material.) Be careful of performance. Based on experience, some different
generations of windows can perform poorly. (Bittle: On the rear side of the existing house, it looks like
there are replacement vinyl windows with the false grids within the pane. The front of the house we thought
still had the charm with the older windows, but you’re correct in terms of upgrading energy performance.)
>It looks like you did a really nice job with the second floor addition. I know that house pretty well and it
was pretty funky upstairs. It was probably an old attic that maybe was permitted at some time. Love that
you've kept the front of the house pretty consistent to the way it is now. Like what you've done and
appreciate everything that you've done to maintain the original home.
>I wanted to thank you for going to the extent of meeting with all the neighbors and presenting the
plans. Did you speak with the neighbors to the left and right in terms of view alignment of the windows
proposed on the second story overlooking the neighbors? (Bittle: Yes, just to clarify, we didn't meet in
person during this time, but there were mailers and an e -mail chain back and forth. The neighbor to the
right, when you're looking from the street at the front of the house, did not respond although I believe my
clients have somewhat of a relationship with the neighbor. Regarding the neighbors on the left, we did
correspond with them and provided details in terms of the alignment of our upstairs bedroom window
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
relative to their stairwell window. We confirmed with them that we're about 15 feet apart. We showed that
our second floor on that side of the house, on the driveway side, does not extend past the existing ground
floor of the existing house; that satisfied her questions. On the opposite side of the house, where we have
the master bathroom proposed, we're showing those windows with a sill height substantially off the floor for
our own privacy.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The only thing that's being asked of us is design review. They are taking what looks like at one point
was somewhat an awkward attic build -out on the second story and making it more graceful. The massing
is sculpted and centered, and steps down towards the rear, then maintains itself with just some revisions
to the dormers on the front. It will give better scale to the front facade versus the more tiny dormers it has
now. This is a good project and should move forward.
>The project is done very well. It has the same good street appeal and it holds together well.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioners Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.1906 Easton Drive - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
1906 Easton Dr - Memorandum and Attachments
1906 Easton Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Pulled for further discussion. Concern regarding elimination of muntin bars (grids) from windows.
b.1536 Howard Avenue - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
1536 Howard Ave - Memorandum and Attachments
1536 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020
August 10, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on August 10, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed
or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 20, 2020, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2020