HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.09.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 9, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and LoftisPresent6 -
TseAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
a.Draft August 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft August 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4 - Update to the design details of a
previously approved five -level parking garage. (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies,
applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (297 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
160 Lorton Ave - Staff Report
160 Lorton Ave - Attachments
160 Lorton Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Genaro Morales represented the applicant.
There were no Commission Questions/Comments.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the change in the stair tower.
>Installation at the Sequoia Hospital is clean and well executed. Metal screening has enough weight so
it does not billow in the wind.
>Will be a complement to the garage.
>Stair tower revisions are an improvement.
There was no action on this item, as it is a Study Item.
b.1801 Adrian Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Environmental Scoping, Commercial
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Parking Variance for a two -story addition to
an existing one -story commercial building. (Bryan Miranda, Public Storage Inc ., applicant
and property owner; Shab Vakili, KSP Studio, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1801 Adrian Rd - Staff Report
1801 Adrian Rd - Attachments
1801 Adrian Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Does the variance run with the land? (Kane: For the particular use.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Bryan Miranda, Public Storage, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Could the bioretenchion landscaping be in a different location than the front between the two
buildings? (Miranda: Least impact on the site. Can look at it in another location if it works.)
>Understandable that you have to have a hammer head for the fire department. Wondering if that bio
retention could be towards the back, and more ornamental towards front. (Miranda: We can look at that.)
>Previously there was parking data from other Public Storage sites. Can there be parking data this
time from this location? (Miranda: Yes. Is cognizant of the right number because it needs to serve the
customers).
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Impact of parking is the only potential impact.
>Visiting project site, I saw a hand full of cars midday. I went specifically around lunch time to see that
people are visiting and going to storage lockers, and there was less than a hand full of cars in the parking
lot.
>Regarding the Commercial Design Review, I like the fairly simple structure that complements the rest
of the building. It is fairly subdued.
>The use already exists in the neighborhood.
>Design review is supportable.
>Is providing substantially more parking than the sample projects submitted.
>Wondering if the applicant had discussed with neighboring property to the north screening. I see there
are trees on the landscape plan that looks like they are existing. Maybe a possibility to plant in the rail
right-of-way.
Chair Comaroto re-opened the public hearing:
>Miranda: Wanted to clarify that the project is not adding to the building envelope. The expansion is
inside of the building. Met with the neighboring developer once already and will meet with them again now
that we have designs to make sure it works for them.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
There was no action on this item, as it is a Study Item.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1509 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Ljs LLC,
property owner) (119 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1509 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1509 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1509 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
b.2345 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for an addition to existing
attic space above the second story of an existing single family dwelling. This project is
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Charles Holman, Charles
Holman Design, applicant and designer; Michelle and Bryan Dow, property owners) (137
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
2345 Poppy Dr - Staff Report
2345 Poppy Dr - Attachments
2345 Poppy Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
c.2104 Broadway, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Jeanne Davis, applicant and architect; Lesley and Derek
Bowler, property owners) (85 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
2104 Broadway - Staff Report
2104 Broadway - Attachments
2104 Broadway - Plans
Attachments:
Commission Terrones was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Tse1 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1453 Bernal 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. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, designer and applicant; Josh
and Lisa Friedman, property owners) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1453 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1453 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1453 Bernal Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
1453 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>3D renderings are different than elevations. Would look better with the board and batten siding as
shown.
>How far back would the house need to be to save the tree in the front? (Raduenz: 6 to 8 feet. Would
interfere with the driveway and break the neighborhood pattern.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Magnolia tree is accompanied by the large fir tree on the adjacent property, and street tree. Would
need to move the house far back to clear the drip-line of the magnolia.
>Likes the changes. Clapboard siding works well with the board and batten.
>Light fixtures need to cut off so light does not spill off the property. Cut-offs need to be appropriate.
>Magnolia roots are an obstacle, would be hard to relocate the tree.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis4 -
Nay:Kelly1 -
Absent:Tse1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
b.1232 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
changes to the front facade of an existing commercial storefront. This project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Keil Sonoma Corporation,
applicant and property owner; Thomas A. Pirtle III, DTMArchitect, architect) (151 noticed)
Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1232 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1232 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1232 Burlingame Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. In his site visit, Commissioner Terrones had a conversation
with a person on the street who is interested in seeing the storefront occupied.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Daniel Coley represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Will there be signage other than the blade sign? (Coley: Yes above the awning on the top bar.)
>The elevations indicate painted aluminum entry doors. Is that a factory -applied paint color or
something that will be painted on to the aluminum? (Coley: I don't know what is behind the process, but
there is a sample here for you to review.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>This seems like a simple, straightforward and elegant solution that has nice touches.
>The fluted glass is a nice touch and the recess of the bay at 45 degrees creates a more traditional
storefront. It is a nice project.
>Appreciates that the signage will be applied to the wall as opposed to the awning.
>I like the project. It is nice and simple and clean and will fit nicely on the avenue.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.132 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached
garage, and Special Permits and Conditional Use Permits for new accessory structures .
(John Stewart, Stewart Associates, applicant and architect; Cyndi and Bob Gilson,
property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
132 Elm Ave - Staff Report
132 Elm Ave - Attachments
132 Elm Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
132 Elm Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Requirement for pool equipment location? (Kolokihakaufisi: If it is enclosed it may be at the property
line. Needs a Conditional Use Permit.)
Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
John Stewart, Stewart Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Why are the plate heights so tall? 10'-1" on the first floor, 9 feet on the second floor. (Stewart: It's
what we have now in San Mateo Park. It's roomier.)
>Why is there a 10-foot plate height on the garage? (Stewart: To accommodate car lifts. Needs the
head room.)
Public Comments:
Michelle, 146 Elm Avenue - Not sure how far back the house will go, concerned with sunlight. Would like
clarification. Wants hedge to be managed during project. Needs clarity on how the fencing will be
installed, and at what point on the property it starts. Will there be a setback and then the 6-foot fence, or
if that goes all the way up to the street. Also how high is the deck compared to the fence. Otherwise it
looks like they've done an interesting job trying to respect the architectural style of the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>There are a lot of special requests but it is a confluence of all of them. For the most part they are
supportable.
>The plate heights are not typical, there are single story houses nearby. Typically when the
Commission looks at requests for declining height envelope exceptions, we look at the plate heights .
These are not typical plate heights.
>There are a couple of houses right next door to this one that are single story and pretty small; this is
going to dwarf those.
>All the requests for CUPs make sense, it is an exceptionally large lot. Lot coverage is more than
1,000 feet less than the maximum.
>Concern with the plate height of the garage in relation to the neighbor. Work with neighbor, maybe pull
the garage forward to add some landscaping in between.
>The horizontal siding with the corner boards works in this situation given that the three houses to the
left have horizontal siding so there's a precedent.
>Traditional design, but cannot make the leap to the plate heights just to allow the architecture to work .
It needs to be revisited.
>For the CUPs, needs to evaluate potential impacts on the neighborhood, and any detriment to
neighboring properties. The pool structure is minimal, does not look like it would be converted into living
space.
>Coordinate with the neighbors both to the rear and sides regarding what landscaping is going to
remain and be preserved, and whether there will be new fencing. Installation of fencing should be
coordinated so adjacent properties remain secured through construction.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Good distribution of the square footage across the lot.
>Well-designed but not convinced by the ceilings.
>Can support all requests except for the declining height envelope.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to bring the item back on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Tse1 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.1212 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story,
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer;
Lowell and Regina Scott, property owners) (152 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1212 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1212 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1212 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>The new driveway includes removing a tree in the right -of-way. It's not a protected -size tree, but what
is the protocol for removing the tree? (Kane: The City Arborist has a protocol. We can flag that so it is
reflected in the staff comments.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Will the exiting fence remain? (Geurse: Will be replaced with a new fence). Site plan should be
corrected. Should coordinate with neighbor for when existing fence is removed to be replaced.
>West elevation steps coming out the rear door should match the brick stoop wall in the front with the
same cap.
>Is the composite siding material assumed to be Hardie siding? (Geurse: Is looking at Hardie shake or
Hardie siding. Hardie shake on the house on Vernon turned out well, with mitered corners.)
>Front porch railing may need to be higher than indicated.
>No detail on the bottom of the left column. (Geurse: It will be brick.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Well-crafted.
>Tucks the second floor spaces under the roof, as the design guidelines encourage.
>Design is well done, but would prefer wood siding.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the
application on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
c.139 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Patrick Burger, applicant and
architect; Wu Fang, property owner) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
139 Loma Vista Dr - Staff Report
139 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments
139 Loma Vista Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Robert King for Patrick Burger, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Would like details on the window trim.
>Hard to tell what kinds of windows. Looks like there is indication of a muntin pattern, but can't tell if
those are large picture windows. Should show the sash.
>Blank on sides upstairs, could have windows from the bedrooms. Losing an opportunity to get some
windows on a couple of sides and also articulate the elevation a little bit more.
>Would like clarity on the construction of the front porch columns.
>Plate height on second floor is odd, 8'-9". Seems to invert the relationship from the lower level.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Given the questions and comments about the scale of the windows and the foam, and a certain lack
of clarity about the design, this application would benefit from a design review consultation.
>Front door seems to be 16 inches off the porch.
>The windows look out of scale - they measure 4 feet x 6 feet.
>Would benefit from design consultant. Needs more focus.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
d.1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. (Tim
Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Kasey and Bill Schuh, property owners )
(112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1556 Cypress Ave - Staff Report
1556 Cypress Ave - Attachments
1556 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
1556 Cypress Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There is color noted for shutters. Are there shutters? (Raduenz: That is accent and something we
took off.)
>Does not see a change in plane in the area over the arches. The brackets project but there is not
enough change in plane to provide the needed depth. (Raduenz: Noted.)
>Show sculpted lines in the elevation, not just the rendering. Needs to be substantive, not just a 2 x 4
thickness. (Raduenz: We will do a complete detail of that.)
>Top of the sloping wall does not seem to fit, needs to be worked out. (Raduenz: We can put some
work into that.)
>Will more brick be added to the chimney? (Raduenz: Likely to add brick and paint it.)
>Should chimney also be showing on the front elevation? (Raduenz: Will add it.)
>What is the thinking behind the siding pattern? (Raduenz: It is a European style. It can be painted, or
lots of times it is stained. It isn't seen often, but didn't want to do stucco. I can provide some photos of
examples.)
>What is the horizontal element above the garage door? (Raduenz: Sliding barn door.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Addition works well with the structure. Glad to see a home being added onto rather than replaced.
>It's a great project, though the siding is unusual.
>There are examples of similar siding in Burlingame.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to have the
application return on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Tse1 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
e.1457 Bernal Avenue - zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
declining height envelope and building height, and Variances for setback and driveway
width for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Tim Raduenz,
Form + One, designer and applicant; Tim and Megan Baldwin, property owners) (117
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1457 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1457 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1457 Bernal Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
1457 Bernal Ave - Project Analysis
1457 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones met the property owners prior to the
meeting to get a preview of the submittal. Commissioner Comaroto met with the applicants regarding the
project and reviewed the plans.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Tim Baldwin represented the applicant, with project designer Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Siding on the original portion of the house is tighter, new addition is wider siding to distinguish it from
the original portion? (Raduenz: Yes.)
>Is plate height on first floor 8 feet, but the new portion in the back is 9'-6"? (Raduenz: Yes. The
existing first floor was measured to be 8 feet, but on the new portion in the back it will be 9'-6", and 9 feet
on the second floor.)
>There is a gable end at the rear of the house on the second floor looks cut off. Did you look at other
options? (Raduenz: Yes, the issue is the massing. The existing house is 3 feet above finished grade, and
that needs to be retained since it is a historic structure. The second story is set back 9 feet, but it would
not work to push it further back. Would not want to reduce the ceiling height as it would create a squat
appearance. Also working with the roof pitch in the front.)
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>There are some examples of second story additions in the neighborhood that do not look good .
Concerned with the recommendation from the historic consultant suggesting the second floor be pushed
further back; it would make it look like an afterthought. (Raduenz: We can't push the house back any
further because of the oak tree, and we're in between two large trees.)
>Was there an historical evaluation at the time of the sale? (Raduenz: No. Was not aware this could be
an issue in the Easton Addition.)
>Would it be possible to retain and restore some of the existing windows on the side? It could provide
some additional mitigation regarding the historic resource. It would be the sash window along the side
that's on the porch and in the dining room. (Raduenz: Amicable to that.)
>On the other side, could you preserve the opening on the side and replace with a new window? I know
the existing window is aluminum. Also could put a door in the laundry /mud room in the location of the
existing window, to try and preserve more of that side facade. (Raduenz: Yes.)
>(Raduenz: Considering adding a gable on the right side elevation between the center two windows to
break it up a bit.)
Public Comments:
(Unnamed): This is a good example of supporting citizens wanting to build a house. The existing house is
in poor condition. There were over 30 offers for this house, and the majority wanted to tear the house down
because of its poor condition. The foundation and electrical are not safe. We need to be supportive of
these types of projects when they come up, and not just build a boring farm house or something like that.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Variance findings can be made given preserving a historic resource, and the width of the existing
house. The existing house is wider than we'd ordinarily see on a standard 50-foot wide lot.
>The effort to move the house and preserve the existing trees is significant.
>The Declining Height Envelope encroachment can be supported because the existing house is wider
than a normal house, and it is being moved closer to the property line.
>Impacts could be less than significant with the changes described, which would allow an MND for the
environmental review. Mitigation would include reconsideration of the window sashes and side windows,
and preservation of window locations on the right side.
>Design review guidelines typically discourage a second floor to be situated far back. Setting the
second floor further back would offset the massing and would be inconsistent with the design guidelines.
>Architecture is well crafted. Addition is set off from the original historic structure.
>Could support an MND, given that so much of the original construction is being preserved.
>While I like the existing house, it is in poor shape. Does not understand why it needs to be retained,
but it has a lot of really nice architecture and features.
>Preserving the resources is important, and the applicant is going to a lot of attention to retain both the
house and the two trees.
>The massing of the second floor seems off, however there are constraints with the two trees and
retaining the historic portions of the house. If this were a new home there could be a problem with the
massing, but the circumstances here are different and the project can be supported.
>Does not seem reasonable to retain the existing 1 1/2 story type since there would not be a project.
>Second story is set back enough. If it was set back further there would just be a box at the back of
the house, and that would not fit within the design guidelines.
>Would agree to keep a bit more of the front and sides. The sun room, and that window on the side on
the left elevation are really nice features.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed, and the
environmental document completed. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Tse1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Gardiner reported that in the September 3rd meeting, the City Council
had a discussion on allowing office use at the rear of deep retail or commercial spaces in Downtown, and
in basement spaces. The Council directed staff to further evaluate the matter as a work item. It will be
presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at a later date.
Also on September 3rd the City Council approved the Climate Action Plan.
a.373 Lexington Way - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review
application.
373 Lexington Way - Memorandum
373 Lexington Way - Attachments
373 Lexington Way - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on September 9, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 19, 2019, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019