That's a good question though.
I don't think I'm going
to go directly into it.
We can bring it up
through the comments.
Oh, geez. Good evening.
I would like to call this
meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Welcome to the August 24th
City of Burlingame Planning
Commission meeting.
For all in attendance today,
please note that this
Planning Commission meeting is
being held in person and using
the Zoom webinar format.
Please note that we are not
accepting remote public comment
during commission meetings.
Agenda item two, roll call.
Commission should note that all
members of the commission are
present this evening.
Agenda item three, report
of remote participation.
There are no commissioners
participating remotely.
Agenda item four, review
of agenda.
Staff, are there any other
changes to the agenda?
No.
Thank you.
Are there any recusals?
No.
Okay.
Agenda item five, public
comments non-agenda.
Members of the public may speak
about any item not
on the agenda.
Members of the public wishing
to suggest an item
for a future Planning
Commission agenda may do so
during this public comment
period.
The Ralph Brown Act, the state
local agency open meeting law,
prohibits the Planning
Commission from acting
on any matter that is not
on the agenda.
Speakers are limited
to three minutes each.
Do we have any members
of the public attending
in person who wish to speak
on any item that is not
on our agenda?
Seeing none.
Next item is agenda item six,
consent calendar.
Items on the consent calendar
are considered
to be routine.
They're acted on simultaneously
unless separate discussion and
or action is required
by the applicant, a member
of the public,
or a commissioner prior
to the time the commission
votes on the motion
to adopt.
This evening, we have one item
on the consent calendar, the
August 10th Planning
Commission meeting minutes.
Any member of the public or
Planning Commission like
to pull this item
for discussion?
Okay.
Seeing none.
Any motions?
Yeah, I'll move
to approve the minutes from
August 10th, 2026.
Did we get a second?
Second that.
I have a motion by
Commissioner Pfaff, seconded
by Commissioner Schmid.
Will you please have a roll
call vote?
Commissioner Horan?
Aye.
Commissioner Lowenthal?
Aye.
Commissioner Pfaff?
Aye.
Vice Chair Schmid?
Aye.
Chair Shores?
Aye.
Motion passes 5-0-0-0.
Let's see.
Agenda item 7, action items.
We have one item
on the agenda today, a
Conditional Use Permit at 890
Cowan Road.
If you are the applicant and
are attending the meeting via
Zoom, please raise your hand so
that we may be prepared
for you to speak
at the appropriate time.
If possible,
we ask that you also turn
on your video at that time.
Are any commissioners not able
to visit the project site?
Or do any commissioners wish to
note any ex parte
communications regarding this
project?
I would just like to say,
being completely honest,
I drove by on the freeway.
But I'm somewhat familiar
because I do some work
out there, so drive by.
Thank you.
Let the record note that all
commissioners have more or less
visited the project site.
Can we hear the staff report,
please?
Yes.
Good evening, commissioners.
This subject property is zoned
as I.I. and is designated as
I.I. under the general plan.
It is located
on the northeast corner of
Gilbreth and Cowan Road and is
on a 2.108 acre site.
Currently, there is an existing
multi-tenant commercial
building with suites A
through J and 105 surface
parking spaces are provided.
Surrounding uses include a
hotel to the north, Highway
101 to the west,
industrial and office uses
to the east and south, and
within the existing commercial
building, there is a variety
of office and warehouse uses.
Some brief history
on this project.
In June 2024, a minor use
permit was approved
for the existing dance studio
on site.
And at that time, it was
categorized as small scale
commercial recreation.
However, in April
of this year, as you know,
the zoning code was updated.
Under this update, small scale
and large scale commercial
recreation were redefined based
on square footage.
Thus, with this expansion
of the dance studio totaling
to an amount of 9,100 square
feet, it is now categorized as
large scale commercial
recreation, which requires a
conditional use permit in the
I.I. zoning district.
Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a conditional use
permit to expand
from the existing dance studio,
which occupies suite B
to the adjacent suite A.
Here's the proposed site plan.
And then here is the existing
and proposed floor plan.
The applicant is only proposing
to do some demolition of walls
inside the studio and create
some new partition walls to
separate new dance studios
inside.
The hours of the dance studio
are from 4 to 9 p.m. Monday
through Friday and 9 a.m. to 3
p.m. on Saturdays.
Staff has calculated the parking
requirements based on the
existing uses and finds that
there isn't actually an excess
of parking spaces provided of
19.
Therefore, this project meets
the off-street parking
requirements.
To determine compatibility
of the expansion
of the dance studio,
you can see the CUP findings
on this slide.
And ultimately, STOT has found
that this use is compatible and
meets these findings
for the following reasons.
For one,
under the general plan,
complementary commercial
businesses, including indoor
recreation facilities such as
this dance studio,
are permitted.
In addition, there are nearby
commercial uses that exist
in the area, and there are uses
that serve youth such as an
existing Chinese school and a
math tutoring center.
The dance classes at this dance
studio are also provided
primarily outside of hours
of adjacent businesses,
so they will not conflict.
There are also no nearby heavy
industrial uses that are
harmful, and as mentioned
before,
adequate parking is provided.
This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA per Section
15301 and Section 15303.
Lastly, staff recommends
approval of this CUP
with the following conditions
of approval.
That dance classes are held
indoors only,
that the hours are limited
to what was stated before,
that the number of students,
employees,
and parents and guardians are
limited,
and that the noise requirements
in the Burlingame Municipal
Code are complied with.
Staff recommends that the
Commission adopt a resolution
approving the CUP
for the expansion
of the dance studio.
Staff is open to questions
at this time. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions
for staff?
Okay. I will open the public
hearing.
Will the applicant please come
forward and state your name and
anything else you'd like
to add about your project?
Good evening everyone. Can you
guys hear me and see me?
I'm joining via Zoom. My name
is Michael Holmes.
We can see you.
Okay, great.
No, I think that was a
a well stated
in terms of a good summary
of our proposed project. So
we've been operating
in this location since 2024.
It's a great location
for our business. And I kind of
just foresee our proposal kind
of aligning with the, you know,
existing uses in the area. So I
don't have much
to add other than that.
Thank you. Any questions
for the applicant?
Okay, thank you.
Do we have any members of the
public attending
in person who wish to speak
on this item?
Please note speakers are
limited to three
minutes each. Seeing none. I
will close the public hearing.
Any comments?
I'll go. The use is similar.
No real changes,
just an expansion. And I don't
see any ask that is
above normal. So I think we
should forward. I'll make a
motion that we approve this
project per the conditions of
the resolution.
I'll second that.
Okay. I have a motion by
Commissioner Schmid, seconded
by Commissioner Lowenthal. Any
discussion on the motion?
Okay. Maybe please have a roll
call vote. Commissioner Horan?
Aye. Commissioner Lowenthal?
Aye. Commissioner Pfaff?
Aye. Vice Chair Schmid?
Aye. Chair Shores?
Aye. Motion passes 5-0-0-0.
An action by the Planning
Commission is appealable
to the City Council within 10
days of the Planning
Commission's action.
If the Planning Commission's
action has not been appealed or
called up for review by the
City Council by 5 p.m.
on the 10th day,
the action becomes final.
In order to be effective,
appeals must be in writing and
must be accompanied
by an appeal fee as provided
in the Master Fee Schedule.
Next item is an Agenda Item
8, Study Session. Item 8A,
Major Design Review at 8
Channing Road.
This item is being brought
to the Commission as a study
item for feedback and comments
from the Commission.
After comments, the applicant
would bring the project back
when they're ready,
and thus no motions are
required at the conclusion
of the item.
Were any Commissioners not able
to visit the project site,
or do any Commissioners wish to
note any ex parte communication
regarding this project?
Okay. Let the record note that
all Commissioners present have
visited the project site.
Can we hear the staff report,
please?
Good evening. Good evening,
Commissioners.
This application is for major
design review and special
permit for plate height for a
first floor addition and new
second story with a detached
one-car garage.
The existing property is a
one-story, 1600 single unit
dwelling on a 4,899-square-foot
lot zoned R1.
The applicant proposes
to demolish a portion
of the first floor and add 630
square feet and a new second
floor that totals 652 square
feet. A total of 2,606 square
feet is proposed, where 2,750
square feet is the maximum
allowed.
The project also proposes
to increase the plate height
to 9 feet, where 8 feet 6
inches is the maximum allowed
for the second floor. Two
parking spaces are required.
One covered parking space is
provided in the garage and one
uncovered parking space is
provided in the driveway.
The project is subject to seven
major design review findings
and four special permit
findings.
Items for the Commission
to consider include consistency
with the design guidelines,
compatibility
with architectural style
of the existing character,
respect for the parking garage
patterns, architectural style
and consistency
for the mass and bulk interface
of adjacent properties,
landscaping, and compatibility
with the architectural style
and character.
Special permit findings include
that the project addressed the
mass and scale that are
consistent
with the existing structure,
roof line, elevations,
and consistent to the
residential design guidelines.
The residential design
guidebook has nine components.
Component number five addresses
mass, bulk, and scale. The
project should demonstrate mass
and bulk to harmonize with the
existing architecture and
respect to the primary and
secondary elements.
While staff finds the proposed
addition is compatible
with the zoning regulations,
staff has concerns
with the integration
of the house in regards
to the mass, bulk, and scale.
Staff would request the
Planning Commission provide the
applicant input regarding the
project as it relates
to the applicable criteria for
design review and special
permit application.
I'm available for questions
from staff. Thank you.
Questions for staff? Sorry.
Chair, I'd just also like
to point out
we did receive one piece
of public correspondence from
the neighbor and that was
distributed to the Planning
Commission before the meeting.
Thank you. Question
for staff? It's okay. I didn't
see it, but that's okay.
I'll just wing it.
Yeah. So you should have
received it via email. I
probably did. I just didn't
remember to look.
If the neighbor does not speak
under public comment,
I could go through the points
in the letter so the applicant
is aware of them and the
applicant as well. Thank you.
Any other questions
for staff? Okay.
I'll open the public hearing.
Will the applicant please come
forward and state your name and
anything else you'd like
to add about your project?
Hi, dear commissioners. I am
the owner of 8 Channing. I just want
to say a few words
about my house.
The house was built in 1917.
It was over 110 years old and
we did remodeling
on the main house but not
on the cottage and the garage.
They are really
in poor condition. My daughter
lived in the cottage. The
cottage is cold
in wintertime and hot
in summertime because
of the insulation.
There's no electricity cord and
we had to use electricity cord
from the main house
to get electricity. So it's a
fire hazard problem to us.
That's the main reason we want
to rebuild the cottage and the
garage. Thank you
for your consideration.
Thank you.
Can we have the architect,
Ken? Yes, I'm here. Hi. Good
evening, everyone.
Just regarding the mass
structure that the reviewer
comment on the channing site,
I propose to put a dormer
to reduce the mass
of it and also raise the pitch
of the roof
to match the existing pitch
of the roof. So I believe that
will reduce the mass of the
elevation facing the channing
road. Can you hear me? Yes, we
can hear you.
Okay. Very good. I'm not sure I
can share my screen. I have a
sketch of it.
Okay. Let me see.
Okay.
Ken, you should be able
to share. Okay. I'm loading my
screen.
Are you able to find the share
button on your screen?
Uh, I think so. Oh, yeah,
the share button is not able
to share.
Let's see.
You are a co-host, Ken.
You should be able to share.
Perhaps you can just verbally
describe
since you are unable to.
Can I send an email
to the planner later on?
For some reason, the button
that shows screen is unable
at my screen. Yeah. Well, why
don't you go ahead and describe
what you... Basically, I will
put a dormer, it's
like a gable roof, gable
dormer, facing channing row
on top of the entry, not entry,
I mean the doorway.
If you sharing that...
Let me see.
Can I share the picture? I have
my phone. Oh, yeah, yeah,
yeah. Yeah, Kevin has a picture
on his phone. I'm sorry. He can
share it at the screen.
Sorry about that. Thank you.
Sorry about that.
Is there anything else you'd
like to add about the project
while we're examining the photo
on the phone?
Another thing we would like to
add is the neighbors talking
about... There's a two Juliet
balcony facing the window.
First of all, you know that
Juliet balcony is like 20 feet
away from... More than 20 feet
away because their setback is
about 5 feet.
And the window they mentioned
about it is a staircase. So we
are okay to take away,
remove one of the Juliet
balcony, but we would like
to keep another Juliet balcony
at the third bedroom.
And the other comments
from neighbor is
about the tree.
It's called the... I measured
it. It's 30 feet away
from the neighbor's fence.
So I don't understand why it's
going to block the sunlight
to the neighbor.
That's the second comment
from the neighbor. Thank you.
It's 36 feet away
from the fence. Just share your
phone one more time.
I'm sorry? Okay.
Okay. At this time,
do we have any questions for
the applicant?
I have several questions.
Maybe you can help me
understand the use of the new
addition because it has a
second front door. So now the
house has two front doors,
which is usually confusing.
And it's only bedrooms,
so it's not like an ADU.
I understand. The current
existing door is
on the right side. And we have
a front yard.
That's the reason why we want
to keep that door to access
to the front yard,
to the side yard on Peninsula
Street. If you like,
we can close it,
but it's more convenient going
to access the front yard
through that door instead
of going around the house.
So the new door will be the
main front door?
Right. The door in the middle
of the house will be the main
entrance.
And it's bigger than
from the other door. The main
reason we want to keep the
existing door is because we
want to get access
to the side yard. And we have a
pretty decent side yard on
Peninsula Street. We just don't
want to go around the house
to go to the side yard.
Yeah, thank you. The bedrooms
are rather narrow, 10 and nine
and a half feet,
and you're asking
for a nine-foot plate height,
which is already would be a
variant. So explain why you're
asking for a nine-foot ceiling
height or plate height.
Yeah, I understand it's six
inches higher than the normal
height. My daughter has asthma,
so we thought the highest plate
height would make the airflow
better for her.
That's the reason why we want
to increase the height plate
to nine feet high.
Ventilation purpose.
They work great. But
on the second floor, just as a,
you know, you could use
coffered ceilings and take
advantage of the gable space
to make a higher ceiling
without a higher plate height.
Because of the massing
challenge with this,
it would probably be better.
This is a question,
so I won't go on. What's the
use of the long porch
on the side of the house?
Because it's too narrow to be a
deck and the stairs are rather
steep. So I don't understand
the use for a full width porch.
That's only four feet wide.
It's not that narrow. I think
it's five feet wide.
At this point, five feet wide,
we can put our shoes there and
some kind of storage spaces
for us to go
to the garage and side
of the yard.
And then the windows.
There are a lot of windows
for bedrooms and full kind
of sliding doors,
which is unusual
for a bedroom. So is there a
rationale for having the
original design?
Now the sketch is different,
but the original design has a
full sliding door, Juliet
balcony facing Channing.
We like natural light.
That's the reason we have so
many windows.
Yeah, we have a sliding door
in the bedroom as well as
in the stand. We thought it
would be better
to have natural light
in those two rooms.
Okay. And the current use is
just one small bedroom and now
you're installing three
bedrooms.
So is it going to be the same
use or a different use?
Right now we have three
bedrooms, two
in the main house and one
in the cottage. So we are
tearing down the cottage. We
want two more bedrooms because
we want our parents to move in.
My parents, they live in
Chinatown
in a small tiny room. They took
care of me and my children when
they were young and we wanted
them to live with us. Great.
Yeah, that's the reason why we
want to have two more bedrooms
in this residence. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions
for the applicant?
Yeah, I have a couple
of questions. On the elevations
you show all new vinyl windows,
but on the window schedule it
says aluminum.
They are all vinyl. I thought
we changed them. Right now we
have vinyl windows. I thought
we changed from aluminum
to vinyl. I just want
to clarify because it had both
on there. So you're saying
they're all going
to be vinyl?
Yes, it will be. Yeah, even the
addition, the new addition,
they all will be vinyl windows.
Are you changing
out all the windows
of the house?
The current house has vinyl
windows. But you're going
to keep them?
Yes. Okay. And then it says
you're going to have new cement
fiber siding.
Are you sure the existing
siding is fiber cement? A
portion is wood and a portion
is cement right now.
Now, the side toward the
peninsula is cement because
when we bought the house,
we made improvement
on that side. We replaced all
the siding. Those are cement
siding.
And on the channing side, a
portion is cement and a portion
is wood.
For the new addition, we are
proposing using cement siding.
So would any of the existing
wood siding remain or would it
all be?
We're not making any changes
to the existing main house.
So you could have some cement
siding and wood siding?
Yeah. Okay.
And then on the northeast
elevation, you have the stucco
on the lower section
intersecting
with the existing, I guess,
is that the cement siding?
Cement siding will be
on the second floor.
On the first floor.
So I'm thinking
of the first floor right now.
You have the existing home,
which has, I guess, cement
siding, or I don't know if
that's the cement or the wood.
A cement siding.
And then you have the new
addition
with the stucco hitting that.
What is that transition going
to be?
It's between the kitchen and
the new addition.
Yeah, I understand the
location. How are you going to
transition the two materials
together?
Uh, Ken, can you answer that
question? I'm not a technical
person. Sorry.
It currently doesn't count.
Yeah.
Yeah, go ahead.
We can do a three-inch reveal
to transition the stucco. This
is a request by the owner.
For some reason, I don't know
if he wants the stucco to be
on that side particularly.
Do you have a particular
reason, Kevin?
Yeah, I look at my neighbor's
house next door. They have
stucco on the bottom floor,
and then cement board
on the second floor. I want
to match to their house.
Kevin, just
like the neighbor's house.
Yeah, I understand. And I'm not
trying to comment here yet,
but the question is,
of course, how do you
transition those so it doesn't
look like you just attached an
addition onto a 100-year-old
home? So I'll address that
again in comments,
but thank you.
And then my last comment or
question is,
on that same lower roof
of the stucco addition,
how does that intersecting
with the existing roof line?
It looks like they're
at the same plane, but they're
slightly different dimensions.
How do those, how does that-
Can you clarify that part,
please?
I'm sorry?
You're talking
about the roof line?
Yeah, the lower roof line
that's over the, that's
below the new addition on the
northeast elevation and then
where that intersects
with the existing roof line.
It seems
to be either very slightly
close to that roof line or just
slightly off. I'm just curious
of how you're going to resolve
that transition. I'm sorry.
Are you talking
about that area? Because
there's a rear side setback
limitation for that. So that's
why we have to reset that part
and then we create a roof
on top of it. Am I answering
your question?
I believe so. Okay. All right.
That's it. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Questions.
Right.
So on that same face,
the one that's along
Channing, I was wondering
about the, I mean,
what we're commenting
on is what's in front of us,
not what was on the phone,
but the gable that is
over the,
that second entrance. Is it
right now, it's just kind
of coming out and held up
by corbels or something. So
it's just by itself kind
of hanging there, right?
Actually, if you look
at the sketch that Kevin just
shared with you, that gable
at the entrance looked
like the overhang. We removed
that. We pushed that gable up
to the roof line
to create more
of the dormer feature of it.
Right. But then, yeah,
I get that. But then it's a
pretty long stretch there down
to the bottom. I think that has
to really be drawn
out properly for us to. We'll
take that away already. That
gable is no longer there.
Okay. And I also had the
question about the transition,
the transition between the old
house and the newer section.
Because I guess you like the,
your client, you
like the stucco
on the bottom. You mentioned
that. But your, the old house,
had that, have you done any
new, is your siding new there
as well? It's all new? The
siding, some
of those siding are new. We
paste them. But what about the
piece that abuts the stucco?
Is that also new?
The very end of the,
on that same face that's
running along Channing? So you
got that right where the house
is. Is it possible
to pull up the renderings for
the new real quick so we can
both just make sure we're
looking at the same thing?
Thank you. Yeah. So if I'm
looking at that, I'm looking
at the gable on the, over the
door that I was just talking
about, directly to the right,
there's the old house. I'm
going to call it old house.
And it is,
has wood or siding that is,
is that new? Did you put new
siding on? Or is it the old
siding? The top one,
they are wood siding.
They are old.
The bottom one, above,
underneath the window,
those are new cement for
siding.
I don't think I understand.
Are you saying, sorry,
oh look. They were replaced.
Yeah, they were replaced.
Partially replaced. Yes.
Okay. And then I guess I wanted
to ask about the cantilever. I
also had a question
about the need
for the height,
that more heights than what we
allow, but you answered that.
The cantilever
on the second floor, what is,
why do you need the cantilever?
It's just to have more space.
The cantilever
on your second,
the second floor hangs over the
stucco section quite a bit. So
do you- Just break the mass.
Is it a good answer?
I'm sorry,
I didn't understand. Just break
the mass of the channel, you
know, of the street.
So we can have almost
like overhang, like almost
like a very local thing,
we catch some shadow.
So it won't look
at the wall as one piece
of wall. It look
like two pieces.
Let's break the mass.
Break the mass. Am I answering
your questions? Yeah, I guess
so. It just looks, makes it
look even bigger than it is.
And then,
and then I have a question
about the decision
about the window. Well, not
really window sizes,
but kind of. You have a,
so you have the balcony there
with the sliding door. I'm
looking at the Channing side
still. So I missed what you
said.
Did you, were you saying you
wanted to keep
that balcony and get
rid of the other or vice versa?
In fact, that Kevin has my new
sketch on his phone. We put a
two smaller window to the,
toward the left side of that,
of the new section.
And we actually create a,
put the balcony side
to the right, to the middle,
right on top
of the entrance.
Commissioner Pfaff, if I may
very briefly. And the applicant
has a new sketch. I also know
that that has not been
presented to the commission.
So you may speak
to it if you have something
to say about it,
but that is not really part of
the record or what the
commission is open,
I thought.
Right. Then I'm going
to jump right
to the last question. Was there
a reason, I noticed
on the front of the house,
you seem to have, I don't know
if it's their original or they
were copied
from the original. You do have
some divided lights
in the front, in the, in the
side that faces peninsula. So
it looks kind of more right.
Yeah. So have you considered
on this side, so it kind
of all comes together better,
some divided lights? I guess
that's the way I would say.
On your, you have lots of,
we do have a light over there.
Sorry? We do have a light
over there.
What's a better way
to say that? Just partitioned
grids, grids, grids, grids
on the window. Yeah, gritted
windows, because, you know,
you have this 1917 house,
which is quite darling.
And then you have this other
one. And the idea is that they
look as, I think the idea is
that they look at one,
that they were, right,
one thing. And so did you
consider putting the grids that
you have on the front
of the house, bringing them
around the side, so it kind
of pulls all together? Have you
considered that rather than all
these much more modern, I think,
more modern looking than the
age of the house? Sorry, we
never thought about it. We work
with that in consideration.
Thank you
for your suggestion. It's just,
it was just a question.
We can only ask questions. All
right. Thank you. Yeah. Any
other questions?
I had one more clarifying
question. It looked
like when I drove by,
there's an existing chimney
in the roof, but
on all these plans, there's no
chimney, but I noticed the
fireplace is still
on the plan. We do have a
fireplace. And a chimney?
Yes. Okay. And the plan is
to keep the chimney?
Yes. Okay. It is
in the main house. Yes.
Correct. Okay. Yeah. Sorry,
it's not showing up
on the picture. Yeah, just
clarifying. Thank you. Yeah.
So we're not touching the main
house at all.
We are just tearing down the
cottage and rebuild a two-story
building.
Right. Any sounds
like we're no more questions
for the applicant? Okay. If
that's the case, I will go
ahead and close the public
hearing. Thank you
for being available
to answer your questions.
Thank you. Commissioners,
comments? Don't you have
to ask for public comment?
Oh, no one's here, but. That's
right. Okay. Anyone attending
in person who would like
to speak on this item? Okay.
Just in case. In that case, now
I will close the public
hearing. Okay. Thank you.
Commissioners, comments? Can I
go? Yes. Okay. This design looks
like two totally separate
houses with two front doors and
three different sets
of windows, two different sets
of siding.
This is not a cohesive
project. And so I think that
you need to look at it in 3D
because the elevations don't,
are not helping the design
at all. I would, I liked, you
know, what I did see
of the sketch, it's moving
in the right direction.
Cause I was going to
propose that you actually
switch the roof 90 degrees and
have the gable end facing
Channing, and then maybe do a
smaller, dormer or pop out
gable facing the other
direction so that your pop
out looks like a pop out and
not just a much bigger mass
on top. I, I don't think that
the stucco is a good idea at
all. I understand what you're
saying cause I did see your
neighbor's home,
but I think given that,
given the look of this house,
there is no stucco there now.
So introducing stucco on the
addition just makes it look
more like a second house. I
would highly suggest keeping
the two existing doors you have
into the old house and not
trying to do a new door into
the new house because it looks
like a new house.
And I would actually then
suggest doing a belly band, at,
at 10 feet or so, lining
with the gutters so that you
then could get, your wall
surface wouldn't be so
vertical. The belly band would
break up the materials, help
give you two distinct floors
of scale. And then wrapping it
around the back side would then
give you something to,
some additional trim
to make the pop out work and
your overhang there.
I think that the Juliette
doors are too big. We don't
really see those very often.
And I would, I would,
there's other ways
to bring light in,
without them being big doors.
And you, and I think
that the question
of the windows is a good one
and it's hard because I know
you're trying to not tear
down the existing house,
but unfortunately in order
to start to make this look
like one house, you might have
to make some investments. So it
may be that the siding,
you just need
to bite the bullet. And if you
want to go with the cement
siding all the way around,
fine, you can make that work.
But I think keeping the
combination
of the cement siding
on one side and the wood
on the other, and then trying
to come into stucco is going
to be a mess.
I don't think it's going
to work. The other thing is as
I think keeping the front door
or the second door on that,
Channing elevation will mean
less infill and less
siding that you can't match.
Let's see where else was I. I
think that the garage is better
off with the siding. I don't
think that, I just don't think
stucco adds value to you here
from a design perspective.
The, yes, and I really
would encourage your 3d, we'll
help you guys see and design a
little bit further on how well
to bring the two together.
When I first saw the
elevation, it was,
it killed me. And so I actually
modeled it in 3d for myself so
that I could understand how the
shapes were coming together
because I didn't want
to come here and just say,
I don't like it. I wanted
to come here with feedback
from what I would want
to do if it were my project.
And so I'm hoping that some of
these suggestions will help so
that then the next time you
guys come forward, we're able
to actually make a decision on
the action and not then just
start over
with a whole new set
of comments. So I'm hoping that
I was helpful. Thank you.
Other comments? Yeah. Thank you
for saving this old house. I
think it's, it's great
to see that you're trying
to renovate it,
but we do want the new house
to look cohesive and not
like this was an add on that
doesn't fit the existing. It
currently looks kind of
like a caboose, you know,
caboose at the end
of a train. so I agree with,
everything my fellow
commissioner said. I think he
has a clever idea on, maybe not
building a second front
entrance, because it strikes me
that you also have an entrance
that's facing the garage,
going into that new den,
with that double slider. So you
have a lot of doors in and out
of a very small space, but it
might help pull that elevation
together if you don't have two
main entrances. this house is
one where I think not only
don't you need a nine foot
plate height, but you might
consider an eight foot plate
height and then use a coffered
ceiling to take advantage
of the gable space.
So interior, it'll be a higher
ceiling, but the exterior will
read lower and it won't be as
much of a vertical. I
like the idea of, rotating the
roof or the sketch looks
like it's going
in the right direction as well,
but I would lower that roof
line even more. For me, the
window, there's too many
windows, bedrooms, you know,
there's a privacy issue.
In addition to light,
you could consider clerestory,
which a lot of clients or
folks are using,
which gives light at the top,
but gives plenty of wall space
for flexibility on where you
put furniture. I don't, love
the side porch. I think it
should either be a porch
that's, you know,
six or eight feet wide,
but not the full width
of the, the house. It, it seems
like you'll need, railings
in the middle for that from a
safety perspective. And yeah,
the overhang on that left side
of the house is also doesn't
work for me. It's, I'd almost
rather that the house,
that the column goes all the
way to the edge of the house,
and not have that kind
of pergola detail. It just,
it's, it feels disjointed
to me. I agree with,
wrapping the whole house
in a, in a cohesive,
clapboard. And if you want
to use the, the cement board,
that's fine. But to have all of
these different surfaces is
going to make the,
the project look
like a mishmash. Some
of the materials are,
are cheap and I think in
Burlingame, you really want
to invest
in higher quality materials.
So I understand your existing
house has vinyl windows. We
typically don't like vinyl
windows unless they're a high
end, product. So, work
with your architect
on that. I noticed the railings
on the, on the porches are
aluminum railings. Those tend
to look not very nice. So just
pay attention to those details
and you'll have a much nicer,
more, valuable house. The
chimney is going
to be a problem,
because you didn't show it,
but now you have a,
now you have an,
an addition that's
above the chimney.
So likely you'll have
to extend the chimney above the
addition and now you're going
to have a pretty tall,
chimney just stand, you know,
in the middle of space. So
you'll want to look
at that closely, I think.
If it's, if it's gas,
then it's a different story.
But if it's a wood fireplace,
that I don't think that will
work from a code perspective.
Yeah, I think that's it.
Any other comments?
Yeah, I, I agree. I think it's,
Commissioner Schmid has a very
interesting idea and, would be,
I, I can also picture,
definitely picture something
like that. I agree that the
other sketch was a start. I
think, though, in order to,
for it to be looking like a,
a cohesive building that came,
you know, ideally it was built
at the same time as the wall. I
think, I think it would really
be helpful to put that, to face
it the other direction towards
the gable towards
Channing and all the other
comments.
I agree completely. So, so it's
probably overwhelming
to hear all this, but that's
why this was pulled up in,
in the past. This would have
gone probably
to a design reviewer,
off site. So we're trying the
best we can to help you. And
fortunately, we have a lot of
knowledgeable people here who
can help you. So we hope,
that's it. Thank you.
Any comments?
Yeah, not too much because,
everything that my fellow
commissioner said was, spot
on and I agree,
agree wholeheartedly.
Cohesion is the word
of the night. I think,
that's really what you have
to try to go
for is how do we make, as
Commissioner Pfaff said, look
like this was the original
intent of the construction
from a hundred years ago.
Cause I do appreciate the fact
that you're trying
to save the house. That is
really nice to do as opposed
to tearing it down, which a lot
of people will do. So we really
appreciate that, but we need it
to be cohesive. We want it to
look nice. and as commissioner
Horan said, we do live in
Burlingame and people do
invest in nice materials,
whether it be in the windows or
the siding or the roofs or
whatever the details,
it doesn't mean you have
to overspend, but it just,
it has to look like it's
supposed to be there.
And that can sometimes cost
a little bit more money than
you may want to spend. The only
other thing I would tell you
is, forgo going to a structural
engineer. I noticed these plans
had a full set of structural
engineering plans, which I, I,
I feel bad because
unfortunately that a lot
of that's going to have
to be changed. So I would
highly recommend you go
through this process with the
planning commission first,
get an approved plan,
and then send it off
to your engineers
before spending the money
with them. Because again, we
can't approve it the way it is
today.
So there are going to be some
fundamental changes that will
change the structure. So it's
just a word of advice. I did
forget one comment, related
to the, letter that we
received.
I don't have a problem,
because the house is so far
away from the, the lot line.
We have houses that are four
feet away and eight feet away
with a driveway. This is 20
plus feet. So I don't,
I don't have a problem with
that other than my statement
that the windows are too big
in general.
But in terms of sight lines
to the neighbor,
that's not concerned
with mine.
But it might be fair to say
to the neighbor that this,
this is not a view area
with any protected views. So
the request for story poles or
solar is not really what would
happen in a location
like this. And, and as was said
earlier, the tree locations are
actually significantly further
away.
And it were any other
configuration
without the garage being there,
I would actually say plant more
trees. Yeah. But, that's the
way it is right now.
I just want
to say one quick comment
about cohesiveness. So if we
just took the old house away
and we're just looking
at the new part, we would
still, I think,
be saying the same thing.
The new is not
in itself is not cohesive. So
take the, the old section away,
just what is drawn,
that probably wouldn't have
gone through here very easily
either. So, anyway, it just,
just to rework, redo. Right. I
would just like to add two,
well, add one and a half quick
things. I'd like to iterate,
reiterate a previous comment
about, windows with grids.
I don't think we mentioned it
in our specific comment,
comment portion, but perhaps,
taking a window that's already
there and replacing it
with one that are,
have grids that kind of relate
to the one on the primary
facade or the one facing
peninsula, that might add a lot
of cohesiveness
to the structure
without having to do a lot
of other reconfigurations.
Just wanted
to make sure that was mentioned
in the comment portion. Thank
you. And the other thing I did
want to mention is, I noticed
on the site plan, it looks
like the current configuration
of the fences does not change
with the addition
of the new primary, entrance.
It might make it easier to
understand the primary entrance
as we're walking around.
If the opening
for the current primary
entrance down by peninsula was
relocated and that kind of,
so that you're kind of led
into it as you're walking by,
I'm, that might've come
out later in the process,
but I didn't see
on the site plan.
So I just wanted
to mention that pretty simple.
But I think everything else has
already been covered that I
would have mentioned. Any
other comments?
Okay. As I, as I said,
we are not making a motion
on this. So, all right. Thank
you very much
for coming tonight. Thank you.
all right. So moving on
to agenda item nine,
staff and commission reports.
Are there any commissioner
reports?
Okay. Staff, do we have
anything to share? Yes.
Thank you chair or as a member
of the planning commission,
just would like to let you know
that we did receive an appeal
of the planning commission's
approval of the project
at 410 Airport Boulevard.
That appeal was filed
by a council member.
So that'll be scheduled
for a council hearing and
at some point in the
near future at a date
to be determined. And then
for our next meeting,
which is scheduled for
September 14th, if we have a
meeting, on that date,
it'll be to consider a,
application for a new building
on Channing, road where,
excuse me, not Channing, Chapin
where the Chase Bank is.
So we are meeting
with the applicant tomorrow
to get out some final details,
to address fire district,
concerns, fire department
concerns, and if we're able
to work through those,
we'll have it
on the next agenda. Otherwise
it'll likely go
to the second meeting in
September. So there's a good
chance we will not have a
meeting September 14th.
And I'd just like
to add that if you do,
I won't be there. Okay. Thanks
for the heads up. What did you
say that you will? If we had
one on the 14th. Oh, okay. Got
it. Got it. Okay. If
there's nothing else to share
on the commissioner's side or
the staff side, then I can say
the meeting is adjourned
at 7:55 PM. Thank you.
Thank you.