Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.08.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, August 9, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and LariosPresent5 - Tse, and GaulAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft June 28, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 28, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - b.Draft July 12, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 12, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: There was not a quorum to take action on the July 12, 2021 minutes, due to recusals from prior absences. The item will return at the August 23rd meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 9a (164 Pepper Avenue) will be continued due to lack of quorum for the item. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.907 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Front Setback Variance to remove and replace an existing nonconforming wall in the same location. (John Pineda and Heather Wright, applicants and property owners; Kim Green, Drafting Green, designer) (136 Page 1City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 907 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 907 Paloma Ave - Attachments 907 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Kim Green, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The application looks fairly straight forward. There are some extraordinary conditions because of the configuration of the lot. In order to meet the required setback, something would have to push farther back on the lot. In this case, there is no real rear yard. The side of this triangle lot is only 109 feet deep. Can make the findings for the exceptional circumstances for this variance. The project should move forward to action. >This is a fine project and that the findings in the staff report are acceptable. >Given the lot and everything that's existing, moving the door is totally appropriate. This is a project to move forward. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.833 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (David Lish, applicant and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., designer) (186 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 833 Maple Ave - Staff Report 833 Maple Ave - Attachments 833 Maple Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not present at the July 12th meeting, but did watch the video and reviewed the materials. Commissioner Schmid was not at the July Page 2City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12th meeting, but did review the application, go to the site and review the video. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I do like the changes. Changing the arches helped bring that scale together a little bit better and creates a better composition of the elevation. You've picked up on what advice was given and it's a good looking project. >The changes are commendable and 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:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - b.1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jeff Guinta, applicant and designer; Nitin Handa, property owner ) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1304 MIlls Ave - Staff Report 1304 Mills Ave - Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - Rendering and Siding 1304 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Jeff Guinta, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via e -mail by Gene Condon, 1308 Mills Avenue: I live at 1308 Mills Next door. I do like the project I only have a few concerns. 1. Over 10 years ago, we approved for our neighbor a home office in the rear garage as she was a public speaker and posed no issue. She passed away shortly after and since then through multiple owners and renters it has been abused with customer parking. Customers would leave their cars for weeks as they would let them park while they went on vacations was well as an over flow day and night which was not the deal. I would like to see this home office removed as a condition of approval. 2. Garage eaves seems to allow roof drainage on to our property and I would like to see those Page 3City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes shortened back. 3. We have multiple projects on Mills Ave all at the same time it appears to be starting at the same time. We get a lot of over flow parking from the El Camino apartments, so combined with the multiple construction projects parking will be at a premium. I would like to see some sort of construction parking plan so that we don’t have a lot of construction equipment left on the street for days. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Be sure that the exterior lighting fixtures meet the city's lighting regulations, that they have the proper cut-off so light doesn't leave the property. The city has regulations with light pollution and one thing required is that lighting keeps the direct light on the property. >I truly appreciate the effort put into the rendering because it definitely provides a degree of quality to what you're doing. It helps with the materials and the visibility of it. I like the project quite a bit and like to see it be able to move forward. >I do like the project a lot and it's going to be a nice addition to the block. >As stated during the design review meeting, I did have an ex parte communication before that meeting with Mr. Condon, the next door neighbor, and he pointed out the issues that he mentioned in his e -mail. The home office is being removed and the whole structure is being replaced with a new two -car garage. They pulled the new garage nine inches off the property line with a zero overhang on that side. Just enough room for a gutter, so the drainage should be transferring around to the front of the property. That's something that obviously public works would be checking as this moves forward for permitting so the issue raised by Mr. Cordon has been addressed. It's not within our purview to require a construct parking plan, but that would have to be monitored and controlled as this moves forward through construction. The project is better with the revisions and it should move forward. > I like this project. I love the renderings, so thank you for doing that. It looks like a great project and can see approving it as per the staff report. > I would like to echo the comment about the lighting. I don't know if that would be in the form of an FYI, but the light pollution is a very important piece and that was a good catch. Otherwise, this project is ready to move forward. >Director Gardiner, would that be reviewed as a part of building permit? So that light doesn't seem to be something we need as an FYI as much as the building division needs to enforce. (Gardiner: That's right. At least the way the commissioner presented it was to ensure that the lighting is consistent with the city's standards. That's something that we would check as part of the plan check in the building permit, so that's something staff would do regardless.) It's always a good reminder at this point, so that the applicant knows that we have those regulations. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - c.945 Chula Vista Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detach garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Pete and Judy Staples, property owners and applicant; Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Page 4City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 945 Chula Vista Ave - Staff Report 945 Chula Vista Ave - Attachments 945 Chula Vista Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Loftis and Schmid were not present at the July 12th meeting but did visit the site and watched the video. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Mark Pearcy, designer, represented the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I really like this project. It's compact. It's tiny. It's neat. It's really well -organized and the drawings are nice. It makes a very compelling case for itself and I commend the architect. >I liked the project when it came before us. It has been tweaked a little bit. Appreciate the architect getting into the floodplain issue with the public works and chief building official. The project should move forward. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - d.1548 Balboa Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved first and second story to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, architect; James Fu and Zhi Hui Liu, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1548 Balboa Way - Staff Report 1548 Balboa Way - Attachments 1548 Balboa Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Xie Guan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: Page 5City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > There were no public comments Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project overall is pretty good. I do like parts of it. Happy to see some of the changes that are being made and listening to the direction that we discussed at the last meeting. One item that I don't necessarily agree with is the railing in the front on the side that you'd like to retain. If you were looking at it as a true elevation in a drawing, you wouldn't see it. But as I walked by the property, of course I'm going to see it. And since there is not a drop -off in height there, it's not a danger. It does not fit in, especially if we're going to ask that the front rail be removed as well. Otherwise, the removal of the lights, the skylights and the front railing meet with the direction that we gave at the last meeting. >A change to the front door is de minimis. The change in character of the garage seems acceptable . Trying to glue brick back on to the chimney at this point is a little silly. When I look at chimneys, one of the things I look for is does it look substantial and something that's appropriate. Stucco in this case seems like it's appropriate. >In regards to the railings, if someone is making an argument that the railings on the rear have to be there for code reasons, then I find it difficult to personally say and insist that those railings be removed . The difficulty I have with the railings on the side of the front porch is that in these situations, houses like this with porches that have a little step off, it ’s not thirty inches, no railing is required, but landscaping can help soften that edge. It can help give a visual clue to somebody that they're not going to stumble or step off that. There’s no reason why the railings will be required in the front. With the railings along the driveway, I could see a situation where somebody's along that side and there is a bit of a step -off, it's not 30 inches, but there's no opportunity to put landscaping along there. I'm trying to look at this from an objective standpoint and with the requested changes that are now before us. I can see moving this forward and approving. >I don't see the need for that rail at the end that's hidden in elevation. I can agree to the front door change, the garage door change and the chimney as -is. So, I'm in agreement except for that front rail behind the column. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - e.1418 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R -4 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Density Bonus with Concession and Waivers /Modifications, Lot Split and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 6-story, 15-unit multifamily residential condominium. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Matt Hollis, MH Architects, applicant and architect; Craig Rogers, property owner) (410 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 6City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1418 Bellevue Ave - Staff Report 1418 Bellevue Ave - Attachments 1418 Bellevue Ave - Infill Exemption Appendix A - Geotechnical Investigation Appendix B - Shadow Study Appendix C - Intersection Operations Analysis Appendix D - Noise and Vibration Assessment Appendix E - Construction Community Risk Assessment 1418 Bellevue Ave - Arborist and Parks Attachments 1418 Bellevue Ave - Material Palette 1418 Bellevue Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones did have an ex parte communication with the applicant and the architect to get a preview of what is being presented this evening. Commissioner Schmid also had a similar discussion with the architect and the owner a while back. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Phillip Lesser, Project Manager and Matt Hollis, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Public comment submitted via e-mail by Thomas Tialdi: I oppose the building of a six story condominium at 1418 Bellevue Avenue. Six stories is too tall. I would support a three story building as this has historically been the maximum height in the surrounding area. Thank you. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The changes that have been made are pretty significant. It no longer feels like an office building which is a positive thing. It feels considerably more approachable and much more in tune with the neighborhood. I find myself liking the project. Is six stories too high? I'm not sure it is, given the adjacent larger structure that's one hundred years old. The mass is very clearly small, seeing from both directions, given that you see the front face and a large face. It's a tall slender building. It's very attractive. I commend the design team for making the changes and making it approachable and in tune with the residential character of the neighborhood. >You have a pretty significant area of stucco wall and I ’m not sure what's behind that wall. It looks like a large area versus the other side, where you've got windows going all the way around, so I was wondering if that seems like too large of an area or maybe it is only because of the rendering. About the living wall in the front, how are you going to be maintaining it? I like the design. I like the overall structure. I like the changes you've made. >In looking at the floor plans that solid wall area is the stairwell. There's a hallway that leads to the bedroom and a door into a bathroom area for one of the units that's opposite of that solid wall. With that said, for me that area of relief is okay. I actually like what's happening on the interior, in that there's a series of windows that you're walking along that exterior corridor within the unit that you're experiencing in the living area and there's a quiet area of the solid wall of the stair you're up against. You can easily go into the bathroom in your unit and you're not staring out at a wall of windows and there's more relief toward Page 7City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the bedroom area. It's an interesting transition because you don't often see that exterior corridor within a unit. So it plays well within the floor plan. > I like the revisions that have been made. I agree that it's much more residential in character and feel . The previous building design is handsome and I would like it built somewhere, but I don ’t think it fits in the character of this particular neighborhood. I like where they've landed now. I can make the findings for the design review in terms of the entitlements. The condominium permit is perfunctory, it's a part of the process. The density bonuses, concessions and waivers, we went through and have vetted those at the last meeting. We have a detailed letter from the land use attorney outlying what they're asking for. This is going to be a nice infill for that location. There's an interesting interplay between this slender building and the broad face of the existing building that's adjacent to the left, they play together nicely. The character of the two buildings play off of each other. I'm glad it's the same owner and that they can work through the working relationship of the parking and the other uses that are going to be necessary on the properties . It's a good project and should move forward. >Regarding that one blank wall, I don't think it's really blank. At any time we start to talk about a stucco facade, we need to get to that next level of control joints that will actually be there, which are partially there in elevation now. I would encourage the design team to really take a good look at those because that too makes a big part of the composition. I don't disagree that a little break from the busyness of the rest is a nice thing there. It kind of shows an intention there as well. I appreciate the extra effort in explaining the infrastructure and additional pieces put into this project that's not pretty or sexy, but it's going to make this area a little safer and help an area that's probably a little older in infrastructure. I also appreciate the effort being put into the landscaping in trying to take care of the neighborhood. The city hall to the one side and being able to deal with a new neighbor of much higher height, but still trying to provide a nice, soft landscaped transition. A big change from before. It's fitting nicely into this area, would like to see the project move forward. >This is a great project. I was not on the commission when this came before this body, but I looked at some of the materials from back then and now, the difference is night and day. I would love to see this at a 30 percent BMR, but given what the presenter explained, it's acceptable. This project is ready to move forward. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.164 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, applicant and designer; Kieran Woods, property owner) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 164 Pepper Ave - Staff Report 164 Pepper Ave - Attachments 164 Pepper Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 164 Pepper Ave - Plans Attachments: This item was continued due to lack of quorum. b.722 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (James Neubert, James Neubert Architects, applicant and architect; Alexander and Rachel Emanuel, property owners) (134 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 8City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 722 Acacia Dr - Staff Report 722 Acacia Dr - Attachments 722 Acacia Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an over -view of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. James Neubert, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Suggests cleaning up the roof plan. The new shed dormer touches the main gable at a point that is slightly above the ridge of the adjacent gable and we see that little dormer peeking up. >When you do casement for the new windows, consider how you do dividers to make them look like double hung windows. >Consider doing a 3D rendering to make sure the roof plan works and the framing members hit the right way. >This application feels pretty straightforward. Can bring this back on regular action when the applicant has looked into these questions. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - c.720 Farringdon Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Kaileen Yen, Winder Gibson Architects, applicant and architect; James Whitley and Ashley Wong, property owners ) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 720 Farringdon Ln - Staff Report 720 Farringdon Ln - Attachments 720 Farringdon Ln - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an over -view of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Geoffrey Gibson, designer and Crenshaw and Ashley Whitley, property owners represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: Page 9City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Public comments sent via e -mail: There's a severe drainage problem on that side of the street that isn't noticeable in these drought conditions. I looked at 732 Acacia Drive and recommended a swimming pool in the back to alleviate the water pressure against the foundation during the winter storms, but the final solution used was pumping of concrete into the basement to create a stable foundation. Two-story homes do not exist on the other side of the street where there's better drainage. >Public comments sent via e -mail by Athan Rebelos: I find this style of saving the streetscape of a classic design integrated with modern and create a design very attractive and interesting. I would love to see more of this in Burlingame and think it's a wonderful project. I hope the Planning Commission will approve it and support more projects going forward. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I love the front house. I even appreciate the material changes and the updating that is happening . However I really see two totally different houses, front and back. I'm not seeing how they're coming together. They are very different styles. It feels like two different homes colliding. I'm not sure I'm there yet in being able to appreciate the explanation of a more historic front to a more contemporary rear. As we go from window treatments in the front and trims to a more punch through metal window system in the back, it's vastly different. >I'm seeing a different house shoved on to the back of this one. There may be ways for a con-temporary feel to grow out of the house, but I'm not seeing it growing, blending and marrying. I'm seeing two pieces of architecture slammed together. If we had something in our guidelines where we can say something less visible from the street or only visible from the rear does not have to have any design considerations and we therefore don't have to make findings one through five from our design guideline standpoint, then maybe we can approve something like this. I can't make finding one for compatibility of the architectural style with the existing character of the neighborhood when that front portion of the house that's going to remain is a big part of this neighborhood and finding number three for the architecture style and mass and bulk of the structure. I don't want to deny the homeowners what they're looking for in terms of that contemporary style, but the project has to hang together from an approachability standpoint, relative to the design guidelines. Looking at the objective points and findings that we have to make, I can't make those specific findings for this project the way that the dichotomy of styles are not wedded, but slammed together. I'm having difficulty from that standpoint. >The second slide for the concept on the back, you could see it was very intentional, that's a very unorthodox shape. That kind of massing in the back is really humble and respectful towards the neighbors. I can't make the finding for number one which is the compatibility of the architectural style with the existing character of the neighborhood. I feel that the way you can connect these two architectural styles is absent, but nevertheless, I do love the concept. I do like the articulation in the back. I feel like a lot of time and thought was put into it. I don't feel like it was two things coming together but eventually that ended up happening here. There needs to be something that can blend or marry the two better. As far as findings go, I can make the finding for number three. I can't make the finding for number one. >When I first looked at this, I thought this is a really interesting project. It is reminiscent of the house at 133 Pepper Avenue that was partially historical. I feel like that house is something that this house was trying to do. It's just not quite there. I also cannot find the findings for the compatibility of the neighborhood. I appreciate the back wall and the privacy that the applicant was trying to do for the neighbors, that was very respectful. I feel that the architect could potentially go back and try to give us what we want if we can give some clear and concise ideas of what we're wanting. >I particularly have a problem when the roofs get steep and the material becomes a significant part of the facade of a building and that's what's happening here. What exacerbating it is it's a large roof surface that's tilted down at a steep angle toward the street. I don't think I would have problems finding that material was consistent and compatible with the neighborhood by and large. What's more acceptable is when the roof is shallower, you're not looking at it and it's not in your face. Especially with the beautiful bungalow like this. I don't find the addition compatible. They do feel like they're slammed together. I get Page 10City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the argument about how this works in Europe and in San Francisco. There are big differences though in a small town like Burlingame and San Francisco. San Francisco has a sea of residential buildings and those residential buildings are largely zero lot lines. So what you've got is a facade that can take on whatever sort of hybrid character it wants to and then the back can take on a more extreme character very easily. That doesn't work here because it's not the same environment. Each one of those projects that happens here happens in a pond instead of an ocean. The bigger the city, the more it can bear that burden of contextual in its morphing over time. Burlingame, I don't think can bear that kind of burden very well. Especially in a small residential neighborhood with small traditional homes to have that happen suddenly. It's not one of one hundred facades, it's one of 15 facades. It makes a big difference. I don't see anything subtle about this project. It's slammed together. What it really takes is a rethinking on the part of the architect about how to approach this. >We see the copying of the front, traditional architecture and additions to the rear of homes hundreds of times over the course of the 16 years that I’ve been on this commission, where a copying of the front is done gracefully and beautifully. I have often seen it where that addition takes on a bit of its own character, but it doesn't slam into the rear of the house and with this type of difficulty. This looks more difficult than copying the front. So, perhaps that can be some additional guidance. Honestly, the project would benefit by going through design review consulting, just having that familiarity with the design review guidelines as an additional voice in the room. >It feels like it's an opportunity for the applicant and owners to re -huddle and think through some of the challenges and see if another swing at this, with a different approach, might help us get to a better resolution rather than just saying that we want design review consultant because there is a skill here. It just didn't hit for us tonight. >I think the architect could resolve this. However going back to design review consultant, it would maybe fast track this for them possibly. So when they come back the next time, maybe it will be more in line with what we're looking for. >It would seem that there's nothing stopping us from handing out the contact information in allowing that to be a voluntary collaboration, if so be, without us necessarily having to force that decision. If they wanted to use the design consultant as a collaborative person to help fast track it, so be it. But if we make a motion to insist on it, then it's something else, right? Have we ever done that before? (Gardiner: I think you could not require it. It is unusual, but you've made the case that there could be a benefit to engaging one of the design review consultants if the applicant feels it will add different ideas or streamline it or fast track it a little bit more. There's nothing to say that an applicant could not on their own behalf go forward and engage one of our consultants. But others have made a point that perhaps it's just more of a huddle and a regroup with the existing architect, so nothing to say they can't still go with a consultant even if the commission does not require it.) >What are our options? (Gardiner: Typically, as this is a design review study item, where there's a project where it looks as though there's more to review the second time around, it would go to the regular action calendar. We have projects go to regular action and then they have to do another lap on the regular action calendar, too, if it's not quite there yet. We do sometimes help projects come back on the design review study agenda on their own accord if they've made substantial changes and they want to check in again before really firming things up for the action calendar. So, really the two standard options are regular action calendar or referral to design review consultant.) >Assistant city attorney, can you help us in terms of streamline and permitting processing. Are they, are we required to give them the opportunity for some action? (Spansail: We're required to move the project forward in a reasonable time frame. You could certainly bring it back on regular action, again, as Director Gardiner noted. You don't have to take the action. You could continue it at regular action if there is substantial changes made at that time. I think that's the safer way to do it because that allows the appeal rights to be done if an action is taken at regular action.) >I would note that we all feel that there's substantial work to be done to be able to get through the next step of this, but we can move it forward. >We're not dismissing the possibility that the solution involves a more contemporary solution at the back of the building and the front of the building if it can be done gracefully. This is all about trying to knit things together as opposed to slamming things together. We're not saying, go away and come back with something traditional. We're saying come back with something that is more compelling, be -cause the message has been unanimous on that point. Page 11City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, 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, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - d.100 Stanley Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc, applicant and designer; Ashley and Tifani Marsay, property owners) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 100 Stanley Rd - Staff Report 100 Stanley Rd - Attachments 100 Stanley Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It's a very nice design. It's a substantial change all around on every facade and I get that changing character, no issues with that. >I like what you're doing in terms of breaking that eave line where it's not the gable running into the other gables and all the gutters align, but it takes away that little spark that you've got with the two different plate heights. If the plate heights could come down in height overall and maybe make those doors seven feet, it would give better scale to the top portion. >I like the design the way it is. Maybe try to play with it a little bit and see what works, if it changes it dramatically, but I like the 8-foot-tall doors. I really like this project. >Both sets of doors, the front doors and the balcony doors are mimicking the windows. They're four square French doors with a horizontal mullion and call it 4'-6" that's in the entire panel which is odd. It seems they ought to distinguish themselves from the windows and that makes it look funny. You might consider that. Having the doors be identical to the windows which I presume are casements, that they could be either one. They can be casement or double hung windows. >It is a nice project. Commissioner Loftis 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, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - Page 12City of Burlingame August 9, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There was no Director Report, as the City Council has been on summer recess. a.852 Fairfield Road - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 852 Fairfield Rd - Memo 852 Fairfield Rd - Attachments 852 Fairfield Rd - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on August 9, 2021. 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 19, 2021, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 13City of Burlingame