Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.02.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 28, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and PfaffPresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft January 24, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 24, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 9f (1855 -1881 Rollins Road) has been continued at the request of the applicant. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1315 Sanchez Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new two -story, single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Page 1City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a)). (Tim Peterson, applicant and architect; Claire and Joseph Benoit, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1315 Sanchez Ave - Staff Report 1315 Sanchez Ave - Attachments 1315 Sanchez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tim Petersen, 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: >Disappointed because it feels that not much has happened. I understand that the side gables were changed into hips, which is not very compelling. It's obvious in the pure elevation, but I ’m not sure how obvious it would be in real life. It seems like a minor change to the project. I do appreciate the fact that the shingles have been deployed throughout, that's an improvement. But the questions about the scale of the building has been ignored. I understand that the applicant would like to keep the nine foot height on the upper floor and a comment is made in the notes that this changes the size of the windows, which was another thing we asked to be looked at. The windows have been maintained on the upper floor and they're equally as large as the windows downstairs. The point we were making at the last meeting is that rather than equal thickness of layers in the layer cake design, more often than not, you would see the upper level being reduced. It's a nice project, but I feel like our comments have been ignored which disturbs me a little bit. >There is plenty of room between the plate and the window to reduce the height of that plate, especially that there aren't really big windows that would require a really big header. I know you can use a smaller header for a narrower window, so that seems like it would be an easy fix. I know there was a discussion about the windows and having them fit under the eaves. There are a lot of solutions with trusses that can be coffered to raise the ceiling in the center and bring the plate height down. I don't see much of a change. I would like to have that plate height and the windows on the second floor addressed. >It’s lacking some fine -tuning with the windows, it needs to be pulled down about six inches. On the landscape plan, the height and type of maple tree was called out, that is going to help push everything down a little in proportion. But I do agree, with a little more work, it could be a lot better. >We have a confluence of issues we've discussed last time that are coming together to create the situation that we have. In other words, we have a nine foot plate height with the head of the windows at seven and a half feet, which is higher than normal and then the windows get taller in order to fill that void . As my fellow commissioner points out, we have the tall windows on the second floor and on the first floor . It looks very static and lacks the scale and movement you would typically have on a traditional elevation like this. It's a nice project. I also appreciate the simplification of the materials using the shingles throughout. But there were some issues that just weren't addressed from the study meeting. >We have made suggestions about what might fix the scale problem and that may work. Chair Schmid re-opened the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >(Petersen: Yes, we are using 7’- 6” doors and setting our window heights at 7’- 6” on the first floor. We are willing to drop the second level plate height down to 8’- 6”. I don't know if that could be a condition of approval. We need to look at the windows further, but we can drop those down 6 inches and still make them work at the size they are. And again, we do have a narrow 40 foot site and we're working with that . Any direction will be appreciated.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.220 Park Road, zoned HMU - Application for Sign Variance for proposed signs on a previously approved office /retail development project. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 (a)). (220 Park Road Owner, LLC, applicant and property owner; GNU Group, designer) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 220 Park Rd - Staff Report 220 Park Rd - Attachments 220 Park 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. Alex Livadas, Dickson Keyser and Mollie Ricker, 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 want this project to really be great and it looks like it's headed that way. I’m very nervous about this signage. It has more to do with you, as a property owner, cannot determine how these are going to look . You're providing a space and an allowable size, but each firm is allowed to do what they want. There is really no unifying theme. In reality, based on the presentation, these look like substantial sized boxes . They will really look tacky if the proportions are wrong. I do think it has a fairly good chance of taking away the beautiful aesthetic that you have. Because you have no control over what actually each design is going to be, since you don't know your tenant at this point, I ’m concerned about going in the direction of a variance and the potential of it being a precedent for every other tall building. >Looking at the elevations right now, it seems to me that the cabinet destroys the head of the column . I do not even begin to envision how the cabinet is going to match with the GFRC. When they take out the cabinet to put in the next sign, the cabinet is destroyed anyway. It would make more sense to somehow work with the materials that you're already using in the building as a face to a cabinet that gets removed each time you change signs. I am very concerned about eight different signage colors and fonts. It will Page 3City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes look great in the font that you chose, but that's not what we're going to get. So, it seems to me that we're lacking a little bit of a signage program that we can approve. The location seems fine to me, other than it's messing up the rhythms that are in the bays. So, I ’m not seeing it as a huge plus at the moment for you. >I believe the decision that's been made about the type of signage is in fact what's going to cover up the architectural features and not the placement of it. It's very clear you could do something without covering up the features in that same location, but the signage design doesn't do that. I'm going to make that argument and I want to make sure that's in our purview. I think there are other solutions in the same location that won't have the deleterious effects that these will. >Consider studying different signage renditions of how companies would want to be represented, either by texts or logo. >I have no problem with the height of these signs. What I have a problem with is that the top of these columns have just been utterly obliterated in between the full column span and the architectural detail has been lost. What makes that important is that this is the entablature of the column or structure, the very top of the columns that, had the decision been made long ago to not push those spandrels back and recess from the columns, this sign might have been just fine because it would have been at the surface and there would have been a continuous entablature instead of the recesses of the spandrels in between the tops of columns. This fundamentally alters the architecture of the building. It's instructive to look at the various types of examples given to us. DBO Partners and Biogen are two example signs over spandrels with homogeneous painted surfaces mounted on top of the architecture. The brick scale is so small that the homogeneous surface, if it were the same color, wouldn't make that much difference. The Biogen is a bad example of something purporting to be a stone veneer but this just has been covered up . The example that works is the United Bank, which is mounted on a bar which pushes the letters forward of the surface itself. You can register the surface passing behind the letters and that doesn't harm the architecture that much. It allows the architecture to be the architecture and the sign to be sign. The DPAC is a better one too. There, you have a panel that is not big, it's not spanning 30 feet and the letters are clearly mounted on some kind of frame. They're pin -mounted to a frame behind it, so you're building a frame and spanning the spandrel from column to column and then mounting the letters to the sign. That allows the building to maintain its architectural integrity and it allows the signs to do whatever they need to do. The fact of the matter is, there was a lot of concern about colors and all that, if you build an office building, you're going to get logos, you're going to get different colors because everyone has corporate colors. That's something you're going to live with once you decide you're going to get an office building. It would be a much better solution to allow all of those things to happen on a same system to allow the architecture to maintain its integrity. The worst part is that this panel is at the entablature of the columns . It's an important part in the architecture. It's a strong architectural frame and that frame is just ignored by this sign that's attached to it. I don't think it's a good solution. I don't have a problem with the height, but I think it's a mistake. If we don't have control over that, that's fine, but we will all regret it when it goes up there because it will not look so good. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I can make the findings for the height and the size of this signage. We have fairly unique circumstances with the overall height of the building which was dictated, as the applicant has mentioned, through the various issues on the site and the gravity we want this project to have in our downtown area. I considered the alternatives and if the signage were down at 24 feet, we would get clutter down at that 24 height like a bathtub ring that would be unsightly. I also considered an alternative, which is almost equally galling, where you have some sort of marquee at the entrance of your driveway and it has all of the different tenants signs within this project and we don't want to see anything like that. Considering the alternatives, this is a good solution in terms of placement, height and size. I would make the argument that I would even be willing to tolerate some sign like the DPAC sign as a sample that was mounted on the glazing of the curtain wall of that penthouse. That could be an elegant solution and it would have even more height and more presence. It seems like we have a very experienced signage consultant, but it seems like a lazy solution to say we're going to strap a band across this architecture and you can put whatever signage that's going to happen on that band. I’m not a signage consultant, I don't do this for a living, but it sort of looks like signage 101 with a basic plate that you mount stuff to and that plate is just covering over the elegant architecture. >If a tenant leaves or the building is sold, my understanding is that the variance is negotiated with the Page 4City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes building. So the next tenant would get to use the sign parameter set by the variance. Once something like this has been decided, unless we're able to put conditions on it, I think its permanent, right? (Gardiner: That is correct. Variances run with the land and with the project, so provided any future signage were to conform to the dimensions that are outlined in this application, we're really not in the business of controlling what is in that signage and in fact, we don't want to be restricting content, so we're really looking at the shape and the placement of signage and that does stay with the building should somebody want to; they're not obligated to put in signage in the future, but they would have that right to the variance). >We're harping on this because we do appreciate the quality of the project and the effort and everything else that has gone into it, which is what we're ultimately all wanting. This isn ’t about moaning and groaning about a project, it is how we bring out the best in this solution. For me, I ’m not seeing it in the drawings that we have at the moment that the panel is the solution to go with. I feel like there could be many more details that would help explain it more and better understand how it's going to affect the architecture at the top, but we don't really have that with this group of drawings to be able to be comfortable and say this is going to work out fine. So, I would encourage that. In looking at the elevations, there aren't a lot of different solutions to choose from. The placement is probably fine and I agree with my fellow commissioner that I can make the findings for the variances, it's just how it is going to be done is where I’m sticking at the moment >I’m going back to the original design of the building and the plaza and all of downtown Burlingame where we've tried to make it have a downtown small -town feel because Burlingame is not a big city. From the beginning, the building was too large, but I did vote for it in the end to keep things moving forward . There was a lot of discussion about the plaza and how this is going to feel at a pedestrian level and there's going to be signs on this building at the pedestrian level. To me, the signage on this building looks like someone is trying to dress up a cityscape or a landscape, a waterfront at some point. So, I ’m having trouble with the variances all the way around. I understand my fellow commissioner ’s point where you don't want small signs on the bottom, but I ’ve had to go to appointment in San Francisco for large firms with no signs. You're given an address and you walk the lobby, there ’s a directory and you take the elevator up. I recognize the desire to want to have a sign for a company or for a building, but this is going to be more than what we're expecting. You're going to get some of those corporate branding colors and lettering styles and I don't think it's going to look right. This building is going to be seen from certain parts of our residential areas as well. I don't think that's what people are looking for when they are looking out of their homes in Burlingame. So for me, it has a big city downtown feel by putting this many signs up so high on the building. I’m not sure I can support any of the variance request at this point. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. It’s not an 80-story high rise in the middle of a giant city. We're a small town and it's a six-story building. It's supposed to be our city center with this nice park and plaza in the front. I just can't help imagine this building with a rainbow of colors of lit signage on all four sides radiating around the building. It's going to affect some of the neighboring residential areas and it's a lot of advertising. I’m not sure if a building of this size in our town needs that type of tenant advertising. It might affect some tenants from coming if they see a certain brand or some other company that's there and they don't want to be paired with that company name or be seen to be like a company name or maybe it's on a similar stature to their company. It might complicate things too. So I ’m having trouble with just imagining how this is going to look when it's all lit up at night. During the day it may not bother me as much because they'll be colors everywhere we look. But at night in particular, with the size that's being proposed and there are eight of them wrapped around the building, it's just bothering me right now. >From my perspective, if we don't give the developer and their team some mechanism to attract tenants we run risk of a potential issue of being able to occupy the building and get it leased. Tenants that are potentially going to come in are likely going to want to have some identity for taking space in this location. We have to offer them that potential tool in order to fill the spaces. I could make the findings for certain aspects of this variance, but would ask that the applicant come back with at least some revisions to how they address the covering of the architecture as one of the issues in their variance. I can make the findings for the height and size on this signage. >I'd like to offer that they consider a signage program. I’ve done a lot of different signage and in some cases you get pinned in doing a green sign because that's what is approved and all they're going to let you do. It's not great for your logo and I understand that. But I also realize that these are going to be signs that are very high on our building and are going to be bright. If they're going to make it work for more Page 5City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes people, then there needs to be some thought put to how a signage program could work so it's approvable . If we approve this without any guidance, then that's what we're going to get. They need to come back with a bit more clarity of how they're going to manage their colors, fonts and things. Even if they don't know who their tenants are going to be, there needs to be a little more to it than what we're seeing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.132 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story, single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Hector Estipona, applicant and designer; Hakan and Esra Danis, property owners) (144 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 132 Stanley Rd - Staff Report 132 Stanley Rd - Attachments 132 Stanley Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff was recused from this project . Assistant Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Hector Estipona and Hakan Danis, 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: >This is quite a nice project. I like the composition, the articulation, the scale and there ’s nothing boring about it. The only thing that I am hesitant about is the divided light windows over the large panes at the stairs feels very clumsy. It feels like it is reaching to try to mimic the rest of the windows because it is so out of scale and clearly it looks like it has a structural component that is dividing the upper panels from the lower panels. It’s much different than the other ones. It would be better if it wouldn’t do that. >Agreed, that one window area could use a little work. Suggests to make it a tad smaller as it is an awfully big composition for that stairwell and looking over the neighbor. Consider reducing the scale of the window and reformulate the composition. Otherwise, I like the project. > I agree. I like the architecture. It is well proportioned and well detailed. As a detail, I would like to point out that we have a hierarchy between the windows on the upper floor versus the windows on the lower floor, and this project does that rather nicely. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Page 6City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Pfaff1 - b.501 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story, single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Bayswater Partners LLC, applicant and property owner; Geurse Conceptual Design, Jesse Geurse, designer) (116 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 501 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 501 Bayswater Ave - Attachments 501 Bayswater 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. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Andrew Geosits, 505 Bayswater Avenue: I’m a neighbor and I haven't seen the plans yet. I wanted to attend this meeting to take a look at the plans. This is the first time I ’ve seen them. One question I do have is, how close to the property line is the back of the garage? (Geurse: We are currently one foot away from each side.) So that's a problem because my garage is about a foot away from the property line. It has been there since 1924. How do we paint between there? If we need to do some work on this new garage and the back or the side of my garage? (Geurse: I’m not quite sure exactly how we can do that other than on top of the roof.) Two things I ’m concerned with is the setback from the property line. How do we deal with the fence line, so that we could work on our house as well as they're working on the back of their property? We only have two feet of space and my roof does overhang. Then the other thing is the fact that our kitchen window and dining room window is directly across from the center section of the yard which faces south. If people are out there partying, it could be loud. Those are my two concerns. (Geurse: With regard to that side patio area, we could eliminate that and make that a stoop and provide steps going down, that's not a problem at all. It's not a large space, so I wouldn't foresee anybody using it as a party central area, but if it would make you happy, we would be happy to have just a landing and steps on it.) It would be interesting to meet with you and take a look at this property to view a couple of things. I think the structure is quite very nice other than those two comments I had. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Correct drafting errors to match plans with the elevations. >Would encourage the applicant or property owner to have an offline conversation with the next door neighbor to discuss some of the items raised. >Regarding that patio on the side, there's an encouragement to use the side and the back house for activity rather than making the back so more desirable to go. You can program that so it doesn't happen to the neighbor. >It will be good to review that side yard element with the neighbor. It's a very nicely designed home . During the site visit, I also see the relationship to the neighbor across the street on Dwight Road, there's a nice relationship there. I like how the designer has articulated the Bayswater side of the house as well, there are some nice interests even though that's not the front of the house. It's a nicely designed home all Page 7City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes together. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.1536 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition (major renovation) to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jackson Hsieh, applicant and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., designer) (122 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1536 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1536 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1536 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item . Assistant 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: > Lynn Israelit, 1560 Columbus Avenue: Good evening, commissioners. I just wanted to talk tonight because I do have some real concerns about the proposed design for this house. To me, the house looks really tall. I believe it's at the height limit on that right side and it makes it look very imposing. Most of the houses on the street have some variation in the front setbacks and little details that break their front facades a bit. The fact that this house has the board and batten with the unbroken, really tall vertical lines makes it look all the more imposing and unfriendly. My other concern is the center section where the front door and entry way are, the stone facade doesn't really go well. It's sort of like this little slice of stone in the middle of this otherwise modern farmhouse look and it just seems very disjointed and overly busy. It doesn't seem to have a unifying theme and doesn't seem to go together. In addition, the front door and entryway are lost. They're just outsized by the two big elements on either side. All of the other homes on our street have these charming entryways and porches, even the modern farmhouse across the street has a sweet little porch. This house looks funny. The door and entryway seem small and the single pane light above the front door looks odd. I also had concerns about the west elevation, it looks very monolithic. In contrast, the east elevation is broken up nicely with different roof lines, different window sizes and it's much more attractive. I think those are really my main concerns, but I ’ll point out one last thing, this house doesn't really fit very well with the houses around it. It's going to look very stark and modern, not in a good way. Thank you for listening to me and taking that into consideration. >David Mauro, 1532 Columbus Avenue: Good evening, thank you, commissioners. I live right next door on the right side. I'm really concerned about this project. I have been a resident here for almost 30 years. The part about the ADU, I ’m not thrilled with because I have another one going up on the other side of my property. I agree with Lynn Israelit, the look of that house is stark and doesn't fit next to my house whatsoever. I have a lovely Spanish Mediterranean style home that I added on to and kept the original style of the architecture. The farmhouse across the street is stark white. It makes the block not look cohesive. I'm also concerned about the height, is there a daylight setback height limitation? I believe the height might be too close to my house where I will get no light on that side of the house. It’s going to be four and a half feet higher than it is now. All the windows are a concern because those look right into my Page 8City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes bedrooms on my side of that house. I have a small window that looks into my bathroom and I have two windows each in the two bedrooms that were original. I did not change that when I did my addition remodel . I really wish he would have used the 501 Bayswater Avenue plan for this place. I think it would be way more cohesive to the neighborhood with what the architect did on 501 Bayswater Avenue, it would fit this neighborhood so much better than what he's proposing. I'm not in favor of this design whatsoever. Can there be a trade-off where it doesn't have to be so high? I know you can, but it ’s a lot of wasted space on top for heating, cooling and everything else. It's not energy efficient anymore. The backyard is fine. Not too happy with the tree in the back corner. We had one before that we had to get taken out about ten years ago, it was overgrown and started to put the stuff in my backyard, so I ’m not too thrilled with that. I think it should be redone to fit the neighborhood. You have been to my house and this house looks nothing like my house. I get a lot of people like those houses now, but the farmhouse look is going to go out of style. It's not a style that will be living forever. Compared to Spanish Mediterranean, they are tried, true and tested over the course of time. Thank you for listening to me and hopefully we can get the applicant to talk to us about this project. Thank you. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The left side elevation is broken up well with the windows. I agree that they're a little regular, but at least the wall is not just a blank plane. Consider adding some other articulation that can happen along there, like an awning roof on the entry door to help with scale along that elevation, something to help breakdown that tall mass. >I tend to agree with the folks who have spoken. I can't decide what it quite wants to be. Looking at the left-hand gable at the second floor and looking at the middle section it looks just strange. I’ll leave that up to the architect to figure out, but it seems pretty overwhelming for the street and the location. >When I first looked at this, it did strike me as a very tall house and after visiting the site, it reinforced that feeling and that look even more. The existing house that ’s there actually fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. I have to agree with some of the comments put out today and over the years that the other farmhouse on that block doesn't fit in. That's a very stark house. It's all painted white and it has black trim and there’s not much landscaping in the front. This house does appear very tall. When you go to the side elevations, one of things that's bothering me on the west elevation is that the upstairs windows are taller than the downstairs windows which is not helping that whole facade. I understand the farmhouse look, with proper landscaping and the right colors it might work. One of the members of the public said the board and batten siding is exacerbating that height and I have to agree with that because it's giving you vertical lines, it needs another pass. >The house shows it's within the declining height envelope or the daylight plane but that's not mentioned in the staff report. Please provide further information on what's happening there. I'm not one hundred percent onboard with the project at the moment. It can be brought down in height. >The house, standing on its own, is nicely designed and well -crafted. But in the context of the neighborhood, I agree with some of the comments of my fellow commissioners. For me the main issue is the entry, it presents itself as more monumental than anything else in the neighborhood. I don't necessarily have an issue with the palate of materials per se. The entry could be stoned, but as was said, if it were something coming off one of the other gables, it could have that story book look and help fit into that neighborhood. As designed, it's breaking the lines of the adjacent gables trying to insert itself in between and be something more monumental than it has to be. I don't have an issue with the board and batten, but there is an opportunity to introduce other materials as a base and that can help bring down the scale, particularly for that front gable on the right side. The only thing asked of us is design review, I don't have an issue with the overall height. There seems to be an issue with the declining height envelope on the right side where there's some violation there, maybe its de minimis or falls within an exception, but we should get an interpretation on that. There are some material issues that could be applied to the project and then to that front entry that would help it fit into the context of the neighborhood a little better. >Looking at the design of the house out and not being on the street, it looked really tall and foreboding . At the street, it seems to fit in the sense of deeper setbacks on that street and some of the homes in the Page 9City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes area have some scale and height similar to this. I do feel that the vertical board and batten is exacerbating the verticality of the house. There could be some material selection edits that might improve the feel of the house looking so tall. I agree that the center entry area feels almost tunnel -like. The front door is eight feet tall but it almost seems like it's a ten -foot-tall door and skinny, but it actually scales fine. It’s just that it's squeezed into this middle corridor and there could be some ways to make it a more welcoming entrance. The left elevation is fairly flat and could use some more articulation even though it's facing the side yard and up against a lot of vegetation. It looks fairly flat and tall. Not having stepped on the neighbor to the left's property, I ’m worried about what they might see from their property. I'm less concerned on the right, but the left side looks quite flat, it looks like it needs a little bit more attention. On the declining height envelope, it looks like a preexisting condition that's carrying forward, although that second story seems like it's entering into the declining height envelope. I agree that there should be some clarification on that the next time around when we see this again. >Looking at the existing house right now and it is a split level on a flat lot. It is one thing when you have a lot that's sloping side to side and you're dealing with split level, but what's really happening here is because we're continuing the split level design into the new house, it's making that right side really a lot taller than it needs to be. If you look at the existing house, it has a pop -out living room that's at a shorter scale. So the height is towards the back of the house and it works pretty well with the neighbors . Unfortunately, this design is going up two stories in the front and it's really making that scale even worse and we're struggling on that. I'm struggling with the entry. I can see it. I can read it. But without a 3d rendering, it's not making me feel comfortable right now as far as it being a good solution. There's some work to be done. As the designer has said, it started out as a remodel that has turned into a sizeable project to redo a lot of the house. It may be worth looking harder to rethink some of those existing conditions on why there’s a need four or five feet of upward steps to get to the first level on the right when it's really not going to be necessary in a new build. So, in turn it is putting a lot of height challenges on the neighbor to the right. I can definitely sympathize with the comments of the public this evening. >Looking closer at the right side of the east elevation, it appears that the portions that extend into the declining height envelope might fall within the exceptions for bays. It will be helpful if we can get that description in the staff report next time. >Even though we're moving this forward, I do encourage the designer and the client to have a conversation about this to help the neighborhood feel a little better. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Loftis1 - d.1928 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Michael Liu, applicant and property owner; Qing Gan, architect) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1928 Devereux Dr - Staff Report 1928 Devereux Dr - Attachments 1928 Devereux Dr - 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. Oliver Gan, designer and Michael Liu, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions Page 10City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Provide spec sheet of the pre-fabricated vinyl column proposed at the front elevation. >Concerned about the north elevation bathroom window size because it does not provide enough glazing and may not be commercially available. Encourage to revisiting with the owner. >South elevation is a tall blank wall without a lot of scale. Consider adding another window or extend a portion of the roof of the garage to create a covered porch over the patio door. >Struggling with the window sizes, they seem big. The vinyl column wraps are not going to be a good solution, consider using fiberglass or wood column. >Really appreciate the montage of photographs that were provided, it is remarkably helpful to see the buildings next to each other and give an overview of what we are looking at. >The window trims are quite bizarre, not sure if these are existing or proposed solution for the project. >The west and front elevation seemed very well composed, everything is in proportion with each other, although some of the windows are quite large. The north elevation is also ok. The south elevation seems lost like it isn’t part of the same building. This fa çade needs to be revisited. The solution my fellow commissioner pointed out is a good one but it seems to me that it has to be more than that. There are a lot of good things in this project, it is close. >I agree with my fellow commissioners, the south elevation needs some work and the small window needs to be addressed. >The windows are the big issue. Structurally, they will not work. They all seem squished underneath the double top plate of the top floor and you need some room for a header. Suggest speaking with an engineer or a contractor about how those could be built. The windows on the top floor seem out of scale. The patio door on the south elevation can be lowered. The sizes of the windows and the doors need to be looked at . The project can be moved forward because it is proportioned well and it fits the neighborhood but there are some scale issues with some of the elements mentioned. >Looking at the existing trim on the photos, it actually is quite a bit smaller which is more typical of a Ray Park home in that area. It probably is a 2” trim whereas the drawing is showing a 4” trim. It is definitely going up in scale and everything is a little bulked up. There are some opportunities for refinement. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - e.1366 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for building height and an attached garage for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. (Wing Lee, applicant and architect; Nelson Wong, property owner) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1366 De Soto Ave - Staff Report 1366 De Soto Ave - Attachments 1366 De Soto Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 11City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke at length with the neighbor to the left. Assistant Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Wing Lee, designer and Nelson and Christine Wong, property owners 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: >In regard to the pitched roof in front of the new attached garage, you have an opportunity for a natural change in the architectural massing if that sloped portion extended over the stairwell because the massing has that notch over the garage, then changes in form and it finishes off the architecture a little better. I’m struggling in terms of integrating the boxes that are on top with this second story mass. I get the fact that it's an existing house. Traditional Spanish style that would have been done in its day where it ’s decorated with terracotta tile roof in the front and flat roof toward the rear could work, but it's an odd stopping point particularly along that side elevation. It would work better if it went back to that point where it changed plane and turned on the second floor. >The issue that I’m having is that the project walks this fine line. We get projects every once in a while where it looks like another house has been built behind the existing house. This project almost looks as though another building has been built behind the original building and care has not been taken to integrate the two. Suggests pulling that box forward on the second floor and the tile roof that's sloping away to be flashed into that wall to make it look more like a single house and more integrated. There are some interesting things going on, but it has the house behind the house problem that comes up every once in a while for us and we raise that issue and put a little pressure to try to integrate the architecture more. >I’m struggling a little bit with how flat the second story is looking on the front elevation, also with the fact that you're just barely penetrating the building height limitation and requiring a special permit application. Consider designing the roof a little bit differently where you are almost mimicking the first floor to have a little bit of articulation so you could put a similar roof pattern on the second floor to eliminate the building height issue and add a little bit more interest to that second story front elevation. >There are drafting elements that need to be clarified. Show all the existing and proposed window locations clearly on the elevations where you intend them to be. The floor plan shows the garage door is centered between the exposed surfaces of the front face of the garage, it's not reflected that way on the front elevation. >In agreement with comments regarding the the massing of that second floor. It was poorly integrated . Unfortunately, we have an issue in which there's a basic program that the homeowner was trying to achieve. By attaching that garage, they now lost the benefit of having the bonus square footage that you get from having a detached garage, which in turn constrained how much the second floor addition can be used to articulate and integrate itself better with the first floor. Nonetheless, we can ’t just ignore that issue. Consider the second floor addition to come forward and embrace that front facade. I don't think it would create an impact to neighbors to any extent as the architect is concerned about. It would integrate better with the overall house. I agree that there is something nice about having that facade on the right side continue up and not just become a layer cake of a box stuck on top of the second floor. But the roof needs to integrate a little bit better. Rather than be a token gesture of a sloped roof on that second floor, it needs to work better to help integrate the second floor addition and not look like another house slammed up on the back of the existing. Otherwise, the applicant and the architect are doing a sincere job of trying to work with the existing and maintain the existing Spanish style house, that's great and that's Page 12City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes commendable. The windows have good scale. I can make the findings for the special permit for the height because of the slope of the property. The overall height of the house itself from the adjacent finished grade is not excessive. I can make the findings for the special permit for the attached garage relative to the context of the pattern in the neighborhood. But again, the attached garage is creating square footage that has to be counted towards the FAR, so that's the balance that they have to try to figure out but that's always the puzzle when you have that square footage issue. >I agree that the real problem is the integration of the second floor with the first floor. It does feel like a house behind the house and it needs to be addressed. Other than that, it's a nice simple addition. The landscaping in this front yard along that sidewalk is one of my favorite landscapes in the city during the summertime. It's just spectacular with the stone wall, the planting in front of the stone wall and the yard . It's just really nice, so well done on that. >I hope that the front yard doesn't get too trashed because that tends to happen. The second story needs to be integrated better with the first floor. One thing I ’m struggling with is that nook removal, I know it cleans things up or flattens things out on that side. I thought that with the nook it looked really well when I looked over the gate. It looks good. It breaks up that side and you've got that side door with the arbor over it. It's very nice if it can be integrated or maybe keep one of those pop -outs, it would help the overall design and it might help to bring that second floor and first floor together. >I agree with what's been said. I've been looking at this for a while and trying to figure out what is it that's not quite going together. I do understand what the architect is saying about this Spanish style architecture because I live very near a bunch of these authentic ones and they often have an extremely simple second story, very paired down, and sometimes there's no roof at all. It looks like you have poured moldings on the windows on the new section as well as perhaps an added a poured sill on the old section of one window, but that's not real typical either. In my neighborhood, they ’re usually metal windows that are simple and they don't have these fancy sills. To help it go better together, maybe those aren't necessary . Maybe it would flow better if it was just paired down a little bit. I completely agree with the comment about that darling bay, the two in the back, if you can find a way to rebuild that or make one work. It's great and thank you for saving one of our little gems here. They usually are completely plowed over and it would be lovely to see this. Thank you for doing that. >I'm struggling with the integration of the first and second floor largely because the second floor is really so narrow. Consider extending the wall to the left, not necessarily a room, but just a wall. If you look at some of the Spanish style architecture sometimes the facades are wider, something that will take away the verticalness of that as it sits on top. Would like to see the garage integrated, it feels like it's just a box that's popped in. I understand the program but they're still not integrating it so there needs to be some thought on how to improve without necessarily changing square footage and adding some details that helps us ground it a little better as an integrated second story. My biggest concern about this project is the integration. It's a nice, clean project and I like the house now. There’s a nice little grouping there, but it's just a straight up box sitting on top. Sitting in the back is actually going to make it worse because it's not going to be integrated with that tile roof on the first floor either. The height is not a big issue for me. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - f.1855 -1881 Rollins Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review, Density Bonus, Community Benefit Bonuses, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new, 420-unit multi-unit residential development. (The Hanover Company, Scott Youdall, applicant; Jon Ennis, BDE Architecture, architect; SJ Amoroso Properties Co, E and S Property LLC, and ANRM Holdings LLC, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit This item was continued at the applicant's request. Page 13City of Burlingame February 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's Reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 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 February 28, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2022, 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 14City of Burlingame