HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.10.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 9, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin,
Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve
the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted. The motion carried by the following
vote:
a.Draft August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft September 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft September 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1846 and 1860 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and
Conditional Use Permit Amendment for supplemental parking for a non -retail service use
in the drainage easement (James Abeyta, applicant and architect; 1846 Rollins LLC and
Rollins Partners LLC, property owners) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Staff Report
1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Attachments
1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
•There is a discrepancy in the building size stated in the staff report and plans. Is the difference the
mezzanine level? (Hurin: Yes, that is correct.)
•Staff report notes that the existing site is currently used for the El Rancho Hotel parking. Is this the
sole use at 1860 Rollins Road? (Hurin: Believe this is what is noted in the staff report; can also ask
applicant to verify.)
•Are there any impact fees associated with this type of application? (Hurin: No, not for this application
because there is no building square footage being added to the sites.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Danielle Douthett, facilities construction manager at Facebook, and Ward (last name not provided ),
transportation manager at Facebook, and James Abeyta, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•In visiting the site, observed 250-300 cars parked on the site. Is this currently all El Rancho Hotel
parking? (Abeyta: Yes, understanding is that parking is for El Rancho Hotel employees and hotel visitors .)
Do you know where these cars will go if this application is approved? (Abeyta: No, do not know.)
•Staff report notes that there is a plan in place if properties are separated in future. Not seeing that
diagram and how it would work. (Abeyta: Staff's concern was that the new parking stalls planned behind
the building would only be accessible if the fence were removed. Current configuration of the site
operates so that you can access those spaces without passing through the back side. Basically, it would
be restored to the existing condition.)
•The idea is that it would revert to the way it is now, could be fenced off and would have the requisite
number of parking stalls to serve the existing use in the building at 1846 Rollins Road, correct? (Abeyta:
Yes.)
•Is it common practice for drivers to park in any stall or in the same stall as the bus they will be
driving? (Ward: Usually driver will pull out bus and then park personal vehicle in same stall, or take the
next available stall. This is standard procedure for all other locations throughout the Bay Area. All buses
will have assigned parking.)
•Will there be a security gate at the entrance to the site to secure the bus fleet? (Douthett: No, do not
have them at our existing locations.)
•Would dispatchers be at site 24/7? (Douthett: No, just during operating hours.)
•What will operations look like between 3:30 and 7 a.m. and after 8 p.m.? Curious to know how
staggered times will work. (Ward: Generally, bus drivers will arrive and park their vehicle, then pick up
paperwork for their trip, prepare their bus, and then proceed to their routes. The first runs arrive in Menlo
Park between 6:30 and 7 a.m., so this means buses are picking up employees between 4 and 5 a.m.,
and all the way up to 6 and 7 a.m. to do their runs, so thats what there is a staggered cadence. This site
would be one of several throughout the bay area focusing on the Peninsula operation.)
•What is the frequency of buses leaving the site as you get closer to 7 a.m.? (Ward: Most of the
buses will have left the site by 7 a.m. because peak hours for employee drop -off is from 7:30 to 9:30
a.m., so busses are leaving early to accomplish that.)
•Would like to know more about distribution of traffic in the mornings and evenings; provide a
schedule.
•Is the same bus driver leaving in morning and coming back to the site after 8 p.m.? (Ward: Yes,
same bus drivers would be returning to the site. We have layovers during the day at different locations
throughout the Bay Area where they sleep, rest and take breaks.)
•Would this site be a place where layovers occur? (Ward: No, this site would be a yard for overnight
operations.)
Public Comments:
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Art Michael, property owner: Clarified that El Rancho Hotel is in process of converting hotel site to
residential housing, so will not need space for vehicle parking.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Straight forward application, City ’s Traffic Engineer has addressed concerns with queueing of the
buses on Rollins Road.
•Not concerned with circulation of buses through site as long as they are not impeding traffic or
blocking sidewalks.
•Concerned about number of buses during these time periods. Understand that all buses will be going
to Millbrae Avenue, would like to see this added as a condition of approval.
•Concerned about impacts to roadways from this type of use. Would like to see this type of use
considered when City studies impact fees in the future.
•Concern with the number of buses being dispatched from the site and buses backing up on the
roads. Is a traffic study be warranted in this case?
•Would like to take a closer look at the distribution of buses during the morning and evening hours;
provide further study and schedule.
•Highly skeptical when first reviewed application, however felt more comfortable with it when visited the
site and saw how close it is to Millbrae Avenue. Think application would be harder to support if site were
located further south on Rollins Road because of the distance traveled.
•Request that staff provide a list of uses permitted by right on this property.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Consent Calendar items. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
a.229 Bloomfield Road, 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (e) (1). (Dale Meyer Associates, Dale Meyer, applicant and designer; Rob
and Kristin Flenniken, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report
229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment
229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans
Attachments:
b.1354 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for One Year Permit Extension for a
previously approved application for Design Review and Special Permit for basement
ceiling height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This
project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Mac White, Michael G. Imber Architects, applicant and
architect; Naveen and Seshu Sastry, property owners) (117 noticed) Staff Contact:
Catherine Keylon
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1354 Columbus Ave - Staff Report & Attachments
1354 Columbus Ave - Plans
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major
renovation (new construction) for a first and second story addition to a single family
dwelling and a new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (RC
Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Kamal and Pritee Thakarsey, property owners) (157
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1422 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1422 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1422 Capuchino Ave - Plans
1422 Capuchino Ave - Rendering
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. 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 Gaul opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•On right hand side where stone stops and shingles start, what does that joint look like? (Wehmeyer:
Stone will be sit proud of the shingle, the siding will come behind it and the stone corner will turn into it.)
•Minor design issue regarding the corbels under the balcony at rear of house. Would you consider
bringing the corbels in from the edge a little bit and centering them between the edge of the windows and
wall corners? It would allow you to finish off around the corbels with the stone easier. (Wehmeyer:
Agree, probably would have done that during construction.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Nice project.
•Previous questions and concerns have been addressed.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage (Eric Nyhus, applicant
and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report
1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments
1268 Cortez Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Eric Nyhus, project architect, represented the applicant, with the property owner.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•What is the intent for building above the garage? (Nyhus: Originally was going to be for an extra room
and space to be used by the family, but in order to keep costs down would now like to convert it to an
attic and maintain some storage space. Considered lowering roof, but it would be a negative impact on
the windows, dormers and scale.)
•Concerned that extra storage space is needed for such a large house. (Nyhus: Aesthetically, would
like to keep space to offset the massing of the house.)
•Would the ceiling height remain the same? (Nyhus: Yes, it starts at 7 feet at the plate and increases
to just over 9 feet in the middle of the room.)
•Building section on sheet A 304 shows a 10'-1½" ceiling height, is that correct? (Nyhus: Yes, that is
correct.)
•Is there a revised floor plan? (Nyhus: Should be in the reduced plan set submitted today.)
•Have you studied a less than two -story elevation for the garage? Concerned that it is too vertical .
(Nyhus: Yes, we did but it threw off the scale. On New England clapboard style houses, typically see
smaller wings on either side of the main body of the house. Have creek and foliage along the left side of
the house, which provides a greater distance to the neighbor; neighbor is in support of project as
proposed. Mirroring house and garage across the street.)
•Add note indicating Marvin Integrity double-hung windows will be used throughout the house.
•Have you considered a larger door opening at the rear of the house to provide access to the
deck/backyard? (Nyhus: It was considered, but have concerns how bifolding doors function, don't think
they would be used very often in this climate.)
•Plans note 8x fascia boards. Assuming will be 2x8, clarify note on plans. (Nyhus: Yes, will be 2x8.)
•Plans note 7-inch clapboard siding. Will that be wood or a Hardie product? (Nyhus: Will probably be
a Hardie product; will do cost comparisons, but generally prefer to use the Hardie product for its
durability.)
•Specify on plans which Hardie product is being proposed and also bring in sample to next meeting.
•What is the proposed roofing material above the two bay windows? Add note to plans. (Nyhus: Will be
standing seam metal roofing.)
•Are the chimneys decorative? (Nyhus: It is a feature of this style house, without it the house would
look very different. Will also be used for bathroom and kitchen venting in order to avoid penetrations in
the roof.)
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Show chimney protrusion on floor plans.
•Did you share the plans with right side and other neighbors? (Property Owner: Yes, have talked to
surrounding neighbors.)
•Gap between house and garage across street is smaller, so it appears to be more uniform. Like
overall design and have done a good job with the massing.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Have concerns about massing of the garage. Understand mimicking the house across the street, but
that house does something differently with a main gable, so there needs to be a better argument. Design
and style is fairly pure, but it ’s being too rigidly pure in that having to have balance of the two wings it ’s
creating a broad frontage.
•If space above garage is truly just storage, then artificially creating false façade to harbor storage.
•Existing massing has a certain charm to it, the garage acts as a carriage building separate from the
main house; now filling in all the gaps across the entire frontage and pulling garage apart because it has
to be detached with a breezeway in between.
•If space above garage is going to be storage and accessed via a pull down ladder, then should be
reduced in scale in terms of roof massing. Perhaps could still have the dormers and volume in a different
manner, but have plate heights spring from first floor roof with dormers popping up above it. Right now
looks like a really broad front simply because it is trying to mimic the wing on the other side of the house.
•Don't mind the style of the house, but am concerned with the garage, is gratuitous. Pulling the garage
forward completely fills the front of the lot and makes massing of house considerably larger than it needs
to be. Would have liked to see the garage pushed back to reduce the massing at street front.
•Like massing of house, agree that garage is busy, need to reduce the massing by pushing the garage
back.
•Should consider either pushing the garage back or relooking at the height and massing of second
floor and the roofline.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Commission Discussion:
•Would agree that project seems too vertical and broad.
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
b.185 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Barzin
Keyhan Khadiv, applicant; Durwin and Carey Beth Tsay, property owners) (83 noticed)
Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
185 Pepper Ave - Staff Report
185 Peppr Ave - Attachments
185 Pepper Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
185 Pepper Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair Gaul spoke to the neighbor at 170 Pepper Avenue.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Payman (last name not provided), represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Is there a reason why all new windows are proposed to be vinyl? It appears that all of the windows at
the front of the house are new and that a few existing windows along the sides and rear of the house are to
remain. (Payman: Chose vinyl to match existing windows.)
•Has a window manufacturer been chosen? (Payman: Manufacturer has not been chosen.)
•Typically don’t approve vinyl windows because of look and appearance. If you ’re replacing this many
windows, is there any reason why you chose vinyl windows other than to match the few existing windows to
remain? (Payman: We can consider changing to a different window type.)
•Large windows are proposed at front of house on first and second floors. What kind of windows are
they? (Payman: These windows will be fixed, except for those in the bedrooms which need to comply with
egress requirements. Existing windows on the front elevation are larger than what we are proposing.)
•Existing second floor window above the entry is not a split window as shown on the plans, it ’s actually
three casement windows. The window to the right is actually a French casement window, as is the window
in the living room on the ground floor. The existing windows have a better scale than what is represented
on the drawings. New windows are large and massive and are missing scale the existing windows have;
should revisit proposed windows.
•Understand logic for setback variance given the size of the lot and the protected size tree at the rear.
•Concerned with size and scale of front porch, is it meant to provide a larger enclosed area? (Payman:
Designed porch to add character to the design.) Proposed porch has a large scale to and is tall. Should
be brought down in scale, would be more comfortable, and wouldn ’t look so grandiose. Would also help
where the gable roof ridge hits the second floor window sill.
•Are two proposed first floor windows along the left side of the house towards the rear also picture
windows? These windows are large in scale and don ’t offer any detail or charm. (Payman: Yes and are
similar in size to the existing window that’s there.)
•Should double check all existing and proposed building elevations to ensure that all windows and
doors are drawn correctly; found several inconsistencies with how the windows are drawn throughout the
house.
•Left side porch column is incorrectly shown on the front elevation, based on the floor plan it should be
shown to the right of the garage wing wall; revise front elevation to match floor plans.
•May want to consider moving tall window in master bathroom, overlooking the street, to the side of the
house for better privacy and would still allow for light and ventilation.
•Is there any reason why stone veneer wasn ’t extended to the garage? It looks out of balance without
it. (Payman: We can extend it to the garage.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•Good candidate to refer to a design review consultant. Existing house doesn't have a lot of charm and
project as proposed hasn’t improved the situation. Project design needs some help.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•Concerned about variance request because it is a corner lot, if it were not a corner lot could see more
justification for the variance. It’s soft on the corner now because house steps back as you get closer to
the corner with the garage being forward. Not opposed with house extending forward, but am concerned
that the house will come out so far that it will seem jammed into the corner. Should explore alternatives,
including extending further into rear yard. Corner lots, lots with large trees and creeks tend to be more
difficult, this seems to be a simple solution to a more complex problem.
•Lots of little details that if done well could add a lot of character to the project.
•Concerned about the inconsistencies on the as -built plans, makes it hard to assess what will happen
with the revised plans.
•Making some motions towards a craftsman style, such as the wainscoting and gable entry, so should
look at window grids to add character to design.
•Generally, variance is supportable but also am concerned that house will stick out. Creek does
restrict the rear yard, but there is room on the left side that could be utilized. Should be studied some
more.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project to
a design review consultant.
Commission Discussion:
•In favor of variance request, but not to the extent that is currently shown.
•If eroded the corner some more and bolstered the landscaping, could also help ease
concerns with the corner.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 -
c.1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue, zoned DAC - Environmental Scoping and Design Review
Study for an Application for Environmental Review, Amendment to the Downtown Specific
Plan and Zoning Code to allow a multi -family residential use, Design Review, Conditional
Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction of a
new three-story, 14-unit mixed use commercial /residential building (John Britton,
applicant; Britton Trust, property owner; Gary Gee Architects, Inc ., architect;) (317
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Staff Report
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Attachments
1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Renderings
1214 Donnelly Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
•In looking at the DAC zoning district and the proposed rezoning, why wouldn ’t we allow for residential
uses above the first floor on the other properties in this area? (Hurin: Thought was to maintain the primary
retail uses along the Lorton Avenue and Primrose Road frontages. Staff considered inner block as a
starting point, but could consider extending the area if the Planning Commission provides that direction.)
•A mixed use project on one of those properties would still have a retail /commercial use on the ground
floor, but could allow for some additional residential units above the first floor in the downtown area if the
area were extended to include the corner lots.
•Have now seen several applications with automated puzzle stackers and lifts. Have any been built
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
yet? (Hurin: Yes, have been installed in the commercial building at 240 Lorton Avenue and the multifamily
residential building at 1225 Floribunda Avenue.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Gary Gee, project architect, and Mark Hudak, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
•Is the driveway into garage required to be 18 feet wide? (Gee: Code requires a minimum driveway
width of 18 feet wide. We are proposing 25’-6” because we have a walkway for the second means of
egress.)
•Is the driveway width required to be 18 feet wide for parking areas with less than 30 cars? (Hurin: 18
foot wide driveway is the minimum required for parking areas with more than 30 vehicles; the minimum
driveway width for parking areas with less than 30 vehicles is 12 feet.)
•Since 18 foot wide driveway is not required, could revisit reducing driveway width to get more retail
frontage.
•How will trash and recycling work? Assuming commercial spaces would take their garbage out
through the garage and take containers to the trash /recycling room in the garage, is that correct? (Gee:
That is correct. Tenant on left side can use the means of egress corridor.)
•Residential units would bring garbage down into the garage, correct? (Gee: Yes, that is correct.)
•Is there a way to enliven the stairway entry? There is an ornamental arched door into the stairway, but
perhaps add sidelights or windows into the first floor landing. Trying to find a way to encourage people to
use stairs instead of the elevator. If door was more attractive and one felt more comfortable with
sidelights and windows into the stairwell, it would make people excited and comfortable to use stairs
because it wouldn’t feel like a utility stair. (Gee: See what you’re saying; area was getting crowded with
utility rooms, bicycle parking, and stairs to rear required by Fire Dept ., so was trying to keep stairs and
elevator in certain locations.)
•Like direction project is going in terms of architecture, but it feels a little southwest. With the
ornamental tiles, false overflow drains, and canvas awnings, it doesn ’t have the timber loggias typically
seen on Spanish style buildings. (Gee: Unique to have a mixed use building facing south, so you can
have overhanging and upper patios; there is a certain richness with the colors and fabric, wanted to give
building character with different colored canvas awnings.)
•With the buildings’ exposure to strong morning east light, are you confident canvas will hold up? (Gee:
Will not be using a classic canvas awning, will be talking to canvas consultant to find right material to
hold up to the elements.)
•If third floor patios had tiled -roof timbered loggias, might be more Spanish revival. But also like the
dynamic of flexibility of patios being able to be open to the sky with the canvas awning. (Gee: Open
patios also help massing drop at the front of the building because building is set back. Is more of a
hacienda style at the top of building rather than mission style, but has details on the lower portion of the
building. Was focusing on how dynamic we can make the pedestrian level work with the storefronts.)
•What material will be used for spandrel panels under glazing in recess adjacent to stairway? (Gee:
Looking at using cementitious covered dense foam panels, looks like wood, could do a wood pattern type
of panel.)
•For awnings on third floor, can you explain how you would take them off and put them back on? (Gee:
Can be fastened with metal rings or similar system to make it easy to install and remove.)
•Have you considered using a mechanical system for the awnings? (Gee: Concerned with exposure to
elements for the mechanical system.)
•Concerned with using Hardie siding along sides of building and the flatness of those elevations. (Gee:
Can install stucco on left side wall, but Cal /OSHA requires scaffolding which would encroach onto the
City’s public parking lot; feel it would be difficult to obtain City ’s permission. On other projects, have
installed flat, smooth lap Hardie siding before walls are stood up. Can be done on both side walls.)
•On a project like this, will be necessary to work with all adjacent property owners.
•Concerned about rear wall, appears to be 18 feet tall up against a 6 foot tall fence. Something needs
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
to be done to articulate the rear wall, step it back, and make it more attractive and less impactful on
neighbors. (Gee: 18 feet wall height includes a 3’-6” tall planter at outer edge of wall.)
•How was this design chosen? Don't see a precedent in Downtown Burlingame. (Gee: One building that
influenced design is the Burlingame Train Station, which is more of an adobe style. Have adobe features
in proposed building with curved walls and deep, recessed windows. Don’t want to copy a building or style .
Want to take elements of a building and put it in an interpretation here. Client wanted to design a building
with richness and elegance.
•Have you seen letter from Russ Cohen? (Hudak: Yes, worked with the Historical Society to save
some aspects of the building and will continue to work with the Historical Society to come up with an
appropriate way to memorialize The Gates House.)
•Hudak: This is somewhat a dead area in the downtown commercial zone because of the presence of
City parking lots immediately to the left of the building and across the street. So need to have something
lively and attractive in order to get the area activated. Instead of requesting a zoning change, could have
proposed a traditional mixed use building with retail at ground level and office above, but were encouraged
to do housing, believe it’s justified and worth it. Think that the inclusion of residential portion is consistent
with the way in which the Downtown Specific Plan is evolving; Downtown Specific Plan initially envisioned
residential on the periphery, but City Council has wanted to bring residential uses very close to Burlingame
Avenue, which is reflected in recently approved projects; think this project is consistent with that. Only a
portion of the block is affected with the rezoning because the City controls the two parking lots, so won ’t
have more residential above the first floor unless the City decides to redevelop those lots. However, might
be a good idea to extend rezoning further to other sites.
•How far back is third floor set back at front? (Gee: 8 feet.)
Public Comments:
•Speaker (no name provided): Very little has been said about destruction of another historic building
on that street, sad to see that we ’re losing a lot of history. Was really heartbreaking to see what
happened to the Gates House, was left to rot and be destroyed without having a public hearing .
Concerned about request to amend the Downtown Specific Plan. There is good reason why you don ’t want
to mix residential with entertainment uses. Should adhere to uses allowed in Downtown Specific Plan.
•Jennifer Pfaff: Reason why more buildings are not being saved is because we don ’t have many
policies in place that are realistic for developers or owners of historical properties to share some
advantage of having a historical property. When worked on Downtown Specific Plan there was a thought
about where we wanted to have housing, specifically not in the core, not on Lorton or Burlingame Avenues,
or Primrose Road. Reason was to keep historic core intact, because once you open it up to residential,
the only way to develop those is by merging lots and demolishing buildings. Goal was to keep downtown
uncongested and to mainly focus on Howard Avenue and south of Howard Avenue. This street is
somewhat problematic because it has two dead ends, it was a service street from its origin, is very
congested and very hard to get in and out of. Agree with letter from Mark Hudak that we did not at the
time consider what a 55 foot tall building would do in a narrow area like this. Commend architect on
design of proposed project compared to original schematic designs. Appreciate comments from Mr .
Hudak about working with the Historical Society throughout the process and acknowledging the history of
the street and the Gates House.
Agree with allowing housing on section that abuts residential uses behind, makes sense and there is logic
to it. However, allowed building height should be reduced from 55 to 45 feet, allowed by a conditional use
permit. Also would like to see a 20-foot rear setback to reduce impacts on residents to rear of site .
Concerned that a 55-foot tall building can be built with no rear setback requirement. Need to look at full
picture, including building height and setbacks expected from an R-3 or R-4 zoned lot.
•Alex Podell: Family developed 1218 Burlingame Avenue, which includes Pottery Barn and Banana
Republic. Project looks great, in favor of allowing residential and mixed use projects in downtown .
Requests that there be construction management plan and a condition that prohibits construction workers
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
from parking on their parking lot.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
•What is allowed under the current zoning? (Hurin: Typical uses allowed in the DAC zoning district
include retail stores, personal services businesses, food establishments and offices. There are no side
or rear setback requirements; at least 60% of the first floor front wall of the building is required to be at or
within 10 feet of the front property line.)
•The amendment to the zoning request is only to allow residential uses in this area, not change the
development standards, such as building height and setbacks, correct? (Hurin: Yes, request is to allow
residential uses above the first floor. However, the speaker under public comments is requesting that you
also consider reducing the maximum allowed building height and increase the rear setback requirement.)
•If this were only a residential project, would there still be no side and rear setback requirement?
(Hurin: Yes, that would be correct in the DAC zoning district.)
•Love the idea of mixed use on this site.
•Appreciate exuberance of the architecture. However, feels like architecture is trying too hard, there is
too much of everything.
•Building itself doesn't do a good job at being an urban neighbor, there ’s a lot about the building that
says “look at me”. Good urban architecture is much more laid back than what is proposed, it tends to
fade into the background.
•Feels like there are too many points of failure on the project; one example are the embedded pots and
how landscaping in them will be maintained.
•Find metal ironwork to be pale and feels spindly.
•Concerned about canvas, will flap in wind and fray and will not be replaced once it ’s taken down. At
some points, awnings at commercial and residential portions of the building will be a disaster.
•Project has lots of details that are so specific that it can ’t be any other possible way. It’s too much
like Disneyland and Santa Barbara. Burlingame is neither of these. What’s beautiful about the town is
that it’s honest, and this project is trying too hard to fit in.
•Uses are good and ground floor retail will be good for that street.
•Design needs to crank itself back some, don't see this building in Burlingame, it ’s just trying too hard .
Building feels like you’re pasting things onto it.
•Design is so highly specific, that it feels like it ’s forcing itself on the community, should be more
reserved.
•In support of amendment to Downtown Specific Plan and DAC zoning district as proposed, don ’t think
it should extend to the entire frontage along Donnelly Avenue. Would feel boxed in if there were taller
buildings on corners.
•Design is overstated and overbearing, needs to be toned down.
•Concerned about west and east elevations, more so with the west elevation abutting public parking
lot. Will be prominent face of the building, needs to be looked at again.
•Excited by this project, great place for mixed use project, fits in well and is a nice transition between
the downtown and residential districts.
•Rear setbacks help transition into existing multifamily residential to rear.
•Like design, is supportable as proposed.
•Understand construction limitations at side property lines. However, design of blind walls needs to be
addressed, particularly with the wall next to the parking lot. This wall will be highly visible, as proposed
doesn’t fit in.
•Agree that zoning amendment should only apply to the central portion of the street.
•Details are a bit too southwest.
•Feel like design was recycled for use here.
•Not quite sure how this design fits here in light of the historical building that existed on the site.
•Also am concerned with the left side wall that abuts the parking lot, will be very visible as you come
up the street from Primrose Road, design needs to be revisited.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
•This is a thoughtful design with regards to the overall program and floor plans.
•Like that you’ve addressed s-curve in street and how you’ve set back the front face of the building.
•Like overall design, but am concerned about maintenance of canvas awnings.
•In support of changes to plan to allow residential use above ground floor.
•Like width of driveway as proposed, allows more comfortable space for vehicles entering and existing
the garage, would not want to see it reduced.
•Accept logic that amendment should be focused on lots that abut existing residential use to north.
•Excited about project and mixed use nature, agree with comments that design needs more restraint.
•Encourage looking at Casa Baywood on El Camino Real in San Mateo, not overly done in terms of
details, has some timber loggias, and feels substantive. Feels like simple Spanish Revival building that
we’ve seen.
•Architect should have license to do some interpretations, doesn ’t need to look like it came out of the
1920’s in terms of Spanish Revival. But if design leads to the building feeling busy, then perhaps detailing
needs to be revisited.
•Appreciate that building has been stepped back at the rear, has almost 20 feet of relief where it’s 18
feet in height abutting the adjacent property.
•Typical to have blank walls abutting an adjacent property line, but doesn ’t mean they have to be
entirely stark and blank, can have some relief, detail or texturing. Should revisit what can be done to
these walls.
•Concerned about 18 foot tall blank wall at the rear property line abutting residential properties.
•There are two simple solutions for side walls, if upper floors were stepped in could place scaffolding
on first floor of building; secondly you could work with the City to lease a portion or entire parking lot for
use during construction. Both walls need to have some articulation that would carry design of building all
the way around; don’t see buildings built up against this building in the future.
•Like bringing retail use to this area, would help to expand downtown shopping area.
•Concerned with architectural style, struggling with how this fits in. Massing is right and building steps
back nicely, but don’t think the style fits in with downtown area based on the design guidelines.
As a Design Review Study/Environmental Scoping item, there is no action from the Planning Commission .
The application will return as an Action Item with the environmental review at a later date.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.1455 Cortez Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
1455 Cortez Ave - FYI Memorandum
1455 Cortez Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
b.Letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill Regarding Peninsula Health
Care District’s Wellness Community
Memorandum
Attachments
Attachments:
Informational - no comment.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 11/15/2018
October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on October 9, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 2018, 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 $551, 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 11/15/2018