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