Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burlingame planning commission approves several design‑review amendments, places one project on hold
Summary
On Nov. 12, the Burlingame Planning Commission approved amendments for projects at 1345 Columbus, 1522 Lessa (with a condition on decorative garage doors), 1033 Cortez and approved a study for 739 Laurel by consent; it continued the 1317 Paloma as‑built review so the applicant can return with more detail.
At its Nov. 12 meeting the Burlingame Planning Commission approved several design-review amendments and actions for single-family and multi-unit projects and continued one application to allow the applicant to provide additional detail.
1345 Columbus Avenue: Staff described this item as an amendment to a previously approved two-story single-unit dwelling for which a building permit had already been issued and construction is underway. Lauren Lee, representing the owners, explained exterior minor modifications, including a change in window grid pattern to a more contemporary profile. Commissioners discussed window proportions (particularly a large stair-hall window) and expressed varied stylistic preferences but ultimately approved the amendment. Commissioner Schmid moved to approve and the motion carried.
1522 Lessa Drive: Applicant Jeff Gwia explained the proposal to raise the garage floor to reduce the driveway slope and improve access from the street, which would also increase onsite parking. Commissioners supported the change for safety reasons but asked staff to include a condition requiring staff review of a more decorative garage-door design and to permit consideration (not requirement) of rotating the garage roof so long as the ridge height does not increase. The commission approved the application with that staff condition.
1033 Cortez Avenue: Architect Elain Lee reported edits responsive to earlier study comments, including added façade details and a request for a special permit for a portion of plate height and a second-floor deck. Staff and commissioners discussed privacy windows and whether a large oak at the rear would remain; the oak will remain. One emailed public comment criticized the façade as generic, but commissioners found the revisions acceptable and voted to approve per the staff report.
739 Laurel Avenue (study): Staff presented a proposed two-unit dwelling with an ADU; architect Alicia Ader described a prairie-inspired approach and the project was approved by consent.
1317 Paloma Avenue (as-built changes): This application was discussed at length after staff reported that field inspection had shown as-built changes (removed decorative brackets, a faux chimney and other details) that did not match previously approved plans. The project partner (transcript: Bad Hian) said the changes were not cost-driven and offered to add details if the commission specified them. Commissioners expressed concern about process compliance and inconsistent submittal/changes made without prior planning approval. Given the number of design details the commission asked the applicant to return with more robust proposals (gable-end detailing, porch posts and enhanced landscaping) and voted to continue the item to a future hearing rather than deny it outright.
What happens next: Items approved as amended become final subject to the city’s appeal window and any conditions listed in staff reports. The Paloma item will return to a future commission meeting after the applicant provides additional design detail.
Why it matters: The meeting shows a mix of pragmatic approvals tied to safety and site constraints (garage regrading and driveway slope) and strict application of design-review standards and process rules where as-built changes were made without prior approval.
