HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.03.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, March 14, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney
Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and PfaffPresent6 -
TerronesAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft February 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft February 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.pdfAttachments:
Vice-Chair Loftis abstained from this item because he was not present at the February 14, 2022
meeting. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve
the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff5 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Abstain:Loftis1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Page 1City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Absent:Terrones1 -
Recused:Pfaff1 -
a.132 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story,
single-unit 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. (Hector Estipona, applicant and designer; Hakan and Esra
Danis, property owners) (144 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
132 Stanley Rd - Staff Report
132 Stanley Rd - Attachments
132 Stanley Rd - Plans
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.128 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two and a half -story single-unit
dwelling and attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Beth Taylor, applicant and property owner; Elaine Lee, architect) (72
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
128 Elm Ave - Staff Report
128 Elm Ave - Attachments
128 Elm Ave - Historic Resources Evaluation
128 Elm Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was absent from the
February 14, 2022 meeting, but visited the site and watched the video. Senior Planner Keylon provided an
overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Elaine Lee and Beth Taylor, represented the applicants and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Darren Prock and Ashley Williams, 120 Elm Avenue: Thank you for allowing me a quick minute to
speak on behalf of the project at 128 Elm Avenue. My wife and I were in attendance for the meeting in
December that both Elaine and Beth mentioned. We’ve reviewed the plans, looked at the updated plans,
have no concerns, and provide full support for the project. We think the proposed house, as it s designed,
would be a nice enhancement to the neighborhood and we didn't see any impact to our property that we
were concerned about.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I wanted to thank the applicant for addressing our questions and concerns from the last meeting. I
Page 2City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
appreciate the very detailed response letter that talks about each of the elements that we asked about,
having done the research, and letting us know about their declining height envelope approval or special
permit approval. The house is very nicely designed. It has some nice scale and details. I can support the
declining height envelope request as well as the attached garage.
>The Commission was very rigorous in its intention to the project at the first meeting and the changes
that have been made are really nice. I'm skeptical of the windows into the crawl space, because one of
the things we have to do is to attempt to know in the future as best we're able. We often hear that
neighbors don't have concerns about a proposal, but that may change if neighbors change. I’m worried
about the windows into that crawl space being an invitation in the future, when the current owners sell this
property, to dig that out and occupy that space. I don't see the need for it, frankly. If they were going to be
put in, they should be very small, clerestory type windows and not windows that would provide egress from
a habitable unit down there. They look just jammed in, they don't enhance that fa çade. Other than that, it's
a great project.
> I was really impressed how the reduction in the height, by only a foot, really improved the front facade
of this project. It doesn't appear as tall, especially compared side -by-side to what was originally proposed .
I can support the project on a design review basis. I also can support the special permit request for
declining height envelope, mainly based on the slope of the lot and the point where that projection is
taken. I can support the special permit for the attached garage. I feel there are a number of attached
garages in the neighborhood and this fits in with that pattern.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. The applicant did a nice job in reducing the square footage. I
can also approve the project for the special permit for the declining height and detached garage. I
appreciate the applicant for all the hard work and details provided. I also agree with my fellow
commissioner regarding those windows in the crawl space, they are pretty big and can ’t see the use for
them.
>I agree that the windows being proposed into the crawl space is unnecessary. I can support some
smaller windows, similar to what we see on the other elevation, which is into the staircase leading up into
the house from the garage.
>I'm in agreement with all of the other commissioners on all those points. I appreciate the effort put in
by the applicant and I agree with what has been said regarding the crawl space windows.
> It’s clear we can make the findings for the special permit for declining height envelope given the
nature of the sloping lot.
Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application
with the following added condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI showing a
reduction in the size of the three crawlspace windows located next to the attached garage
(Southeast Elevation); the size of the crawlspace windows should be similar in size to the
windows in the hallway off the garage (Northwest Elevation).
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing
single-unit dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form +One, applicant and designer; Kasey
and Bill Schuh, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 3City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1556 Cypress Ave - Staff Report
1556 Cypress Ave - Attachments
1556 Cypress Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item
because she lives within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner Pfaff was recused from this item
because she had previously commented on this project as a member of the public. Planning Manager
Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer and Kasey and Bill Schuh, property owners, represented the applicant and
answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Public comment submitted via email by Leon Fong and Michelle Margona, 1555 Cypress Avenue: We
live across the street from 1556 Cypress Avenue. We received a public hearing notice about this project .
Now that the project is complete, we would like to express that the end result is an improvement to the
neighborhood and we appreciate that the original house was maintained in details and in size. It isn't often
that you see real effort put into maintaining the original architecture with new residential projects. We are
happy that the owners kept the house true to the character of the neighborhood.
>Public comment submitted via email by Liz Horton, 1560 Cypress Avenue: I reside next door to 1556
Cypress Avenue. I’m writing to express how much I appreciate the project at 1556 Cypress Avenue. It was
a true remodel maintaining the same exterior details and footprint of the original home. The house turned
out wonderful and the updates were all in line with the original details aren't often seen on new
construction. It was so nice to see a new building in the neighborhood that maintained the architecture. I
know that I speak for others in the neighborhood and we're happy with how the house turned out and see it
as an improvement to the neighborhood.
>Public comment submitted via email by Bob and Donna Heisler at 1566 Cypress Avenue: We're
writing to express our support for the approval of the project located at 1556 Cypress Avenue. We live only
three houses away and have watched the remodel from the beginning and love the results. We appreciate
the Schuh family for taking such effort in maintaining integrity of the home and the final result is
absolutely gorgeous. It's our hope the Planning Commission approve the project as is and love it as much
as we do.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>In the current photos of the rear of the house provided to us, there's a fairly deep eave over that
second story pediment at the gable end. It would seem that without any stucco cutting that this would be
an easy application of the details that were originally approved for that particular application. Feel like we're
kind of pinned in a corner and forced to just approve what's being proposed. It looked like that was one
elevation that could be improved or at least match the approved elevation.
>Like what my fellow commissioner has alluded to, this really puts us in a difficult situation because we
spent a lot of time on this going through the application and all the details. It's unfortunate that
Commissioner Terrones isn't here because I think he did pull this application for further review because he
had concerns with it as well. He referred to the little portico at the bump out above the front door as a
jewel box that adds the architectural integrity of the house and the overall design. I agree with the
applicant that adding the wood siding at the gable on the rear may seem out of place because it wouldn't
be on the other gable ends. But in the original design that was approved, all of those gable ends had the
wood siding and the corbels and dentil work. That held this whole design together. What the applicant is
asking for, I find it a little bit plain and lacking the detail that we liked and saw in the original design. This
Page 4City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
makes us question what we are doing here as a commission. I could be spending time with my family now
if we're going having applicants do what they want when we sit here all night and approve these designs
and then the applicant, contractor and designer do whatever they feel like doing. I'm disheartened that the
second story gables or bays were added and just that detail was disregarded. So my inclination is it
should have been done the way it was originally approved. There's going to be some concessions made
because I can't see letting this go the way it is because we're setting ourselves up for more of the same.
>I need to see some of this go along the lines of what was originally approved. I don't think what we
have in front of us is approvable, at least not to me tonight. They knew this was coming up, it got called
back and there were no proposed changes made to come in line with the original design. There needs to
be some effort made by the applicant, owner and the contractor to bring it more in line with what we
originally approved.
>I feel like we're in such a difficult position because the homeowners are new to the team, and I ’m not
necessarily blaming the designer on this either. This is an informed team. I feel like we have no choice .
I’m tired of not having a choice but to agree with what's being presented to us. I also feel that adding cost
and cutting up a house also seems very wasteful, but at the same time, I want to carry through the
integrity of the design that we have approved. I don't know what kind of hybrid approach that they could
come up with that would be pleasing. I've been put in that same position as an applicant in the past and
had to learn the hard way as well and had to force a client to spend the money to make the changes they
made to the design and rectify them to match the approved design. If I were to look at it in all fairness in
that sense, I would say that would be a fair approach and that ’s the same thing that should happen here
because part of the team isn't informed, but part of the team is informed about this process. It was hard
for my client and it was a waste of money, but they had to do it and that's where I stand on that. I was
trying to come up with a compromise with the rear elevation, even though I know there are some gable
ends that won't have that detail. It seems like the rear elevation could be a place to add the siding in the
gable since it's a side viewed from the backyard and enjoyed, and publicly seen easily by neighboring
properties as well. So, I was trying to offer a compromise there.
>It seems to me that we are needing some more to move to the middle of this. I can appreciate that
adding the dentils is a path. I can also appreciate the challenge of getting the details in after the stucco .
But I tend to agree with my fellow commissioners that it's hard to not get any of the design pieces out of it
at this point. So, we need a better proposal.
>Spansail: I don't want to make this go on any longer, but one thing that could be helpful is, it looks
like the commissioners have talked about different ways they think this could get to an approval. If we
could explore a little more how those might overlap, what it would really look like for an approval at the next
meeting, just to see what's in common, that would be helpful.
>We had a job to do and we did our job. The applicant was under -served by the professionals who sold
them those services. At this point, it doesn ’t matter if what gets put back in front of us is exactly what got
presented to us the first time we approved it, but what we see right now is the absolute minimum that
could be done and that's not sufficient for me. We're not getting anything back here. We asked for
something that improves the project in a way and what we got was the brackets which are not sufficient. I
know that people add things to the outside of stucco houses all the time. It's not as though it can't be
done. You don't have to remove the stucco to add stuff to a house. Somebody needs to go back and
figure out something that makes some sense and make this palatable to the commission because we did
our job. And now we're being asked to do another job which is to cave in and I can't do it. So I would
suggest to come back with something that you can add onto stucco to make the house more attractive
because right now, it's just plain and it's not what we approved, very simple. It didn't get approved.
>I agree and I can appreciate that the direction has changed a little bit. The solution needs to add
some value beyond where we're at today.
>Recommends the applicant discuss possible solutions with a designer and their contractor that will
work for both sides.
>Provide the original plans and some photos that show the house prior to the remodel and the addition,
if available.
Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to continue the item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Page 5City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Recused:Comaroto, and Pfaff2 -
c.516 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single -unit 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. (Tim Raduenz, Form +One, applicant and
designer; Jill and Joe Cannon, property owners) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
516 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
516 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
516 Burlingame Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he did not attend the
February 14, 2022 meeting, but visited the project site and watched the video. Senior Planner Keylon
provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Public comment submitted via e -mail by Carroll Fanucchi, 305 Dwight Road: This addition would be
to the rear of my home on Dwight Road. A second story may cover my view to the sky and that would be a
huge loss for me. I have lived here for 61 years. If their addition keeps the home looking similar to the way
it looks now, I have no objection to them building a second story. I would like to look out and not see a
huge building covering the skyline. Since I'm elderly, most of the time I stay in the same room and look
out back, that’s the reason I would hate to see another huge home going up unless it's cut to a minimum .
Another home in the back at 514 Burlingame Avenue added another room a few years ago. I don't think
they had a permit and if they did, I didn't receive a notice. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
express my opinion.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>On the window on the west side, out of the two options, I like the way the double -hung version works
together and holds the rest of the elevation and the similarity versus the larger cross version. Otherwise,
this worked pretty well with the structure that's there and I found it approvable.
>The project is pretty straightforward. I agree with the option on sheet A 3.0 as opposed to the
double-hung windows. I know that my fellow commissioner had some issues with the additional clerestory
height, but the applicant ’s comment that it was much more compelling in the three -dimensional drawing
was true. It works okay despite the difference in the head height of the window.
> I was wondering if there is a reason why the windows on the right elevation have no shutters; it feels
awkward. Not sure if it would be impacting the window in the middle on the top. Other than that, it's a nice
project.
>The proposed right side rendering seems to show shutters on the window on the left side of the rear
Page 6City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
elevation. I would agree with my fellow commissioner that there are some that exist on the right side
elevation and then there are new windows that are popped in. We have shutters showing up on the rear
elevation; recommend adding shutters to the remaining windows on that right side to be consistent, with
the exception of the small window on the main floor. There's a hybrid of window style going around the
house, but it seems fairly consistent on the upper floor as there are shutters across all upper windows
where space allows. The designs come together very nicely. I appreciate the renderings, they ’re very
helpful in communicating the design. I also do like the proposed transom over the dining room window.
>I agree, it needs some consistency.
>Need to add shutters on the right elevation on the upper and lower floors by that small window prior to
the issuance of the building permit.
>I would like some clarity and guidance about the shutters, the center window on the upper floor shows
a different window grid pattern and it remains an existing window with a different grid pattern in the
proposed elevation.
Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to approve the application
with the following added condition:
>that shutters shall be added to the first and second floor windows on the Right Elevation
towards the rear of the house (no shutters required for the bathroom window).
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
d.1516 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP, applicant and
designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
1516 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1516 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1516 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Azadeh Masrour and Behzad Hadjian, represented the applicant and answered questions about the
application.
Public Comments:
> Public comments submitted via e -mail by Frances Olson, 1520 Bernal Avenue: I have a one -story
property next to this new proposed development and want to be sure my house will not be dwarfed or lose
sunlight with the size and placement of the new house. Thank you for your consideration of the adjoining
properties.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>There are decorative brackets on the gable ends all around the house, but was not reflected on the
Page 7City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
detached garage. Recommend adding the same detail to have a more consistent look.
>Locations for exterior lighting have been identified around the house. Consider providing exterior
lighting at the side entry door and the garage as well.
>The wood siding seems to be drawn bigger than 5” or 6” as intended. It throws the scale of the fa çade
and appears to be close to a foot. It is important to draw the siding correctly and to scale to avoid the doll
house impression. In general, it is going in a really good direction.
>The board and batten siding spacing above the front pediment feels really tight. I don ’t think you can
get batten that close together; it does not feel realistic. Neither of the siding representations feel realistic
to me, recommend that you pay some attention to that design element.
>Suggest to also show board and batten siding on the front and the rear gable ends.
>Please specify dimensions, any corner conditions and pieces that may need to be added for the
window trim details.
>On the landscape plan, provide more information on what was envisioned for the right hand side of the
property by the driveway.
>This has come a long way. Make sure to have the 3D rendering reflect the correct sidings for a more
accurate look. My biggest concern is that the sliding doors are extremely large at the proposed rear
elevation. They look out of proportion from the rest of the home.
>Should think about the detail of how to end the wood siding at the bottom and how it ’s going to work
with the foundation vents.
>Civil plans do not address any of the site issues raised from the previous meeting. The proposed
driveway and retaining wall are two feet from the neighbor ’s house. I am concerned for the tree on their
yard and the potential damage to their home when construction starts.
>Drawings do not address the wall across the front of the property and the five -foot height difference
between the sidewalk and the house, more information needs to be provided. The renderings suggest that
you are on a flat lot but you are not. The civil drawings need to show the scope of what was intended for
grading and/or retention in this area. Site issues need to be addressed and how that will impact the
neighbors.
>The project is heading in a really good direction. It has made a lot of progress since the original
proposal came in. Based on the comments and questions raised by my fellow commissioners, what we
are looking for is to see drawings that are close enough to be credible. The windows, window trims and
sidings are not credible as shown. Much of the project is acceptable, it is just some parts that are
disproportioned. We need to see something adequate to solve the problem so we don ’t end up with a
design that will come back to us later because it was not buildable in the first place. We need to see that
the design is close enough to be built so it does not get completely changed in the process of building it .
The request for a detailed landscape plan and some sense of topography is reasonable. The complete
design is not quite there yet.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. The project is going in the right direction, but it definitely needs
some more detail and clarifications on the right wall on how it will impact the neighbor’s tree.
>To address the public comment, this is not a very tall project but it can be a lot taller because it is on
a hill. Unfortunately, we can ’t do much about it. The project is definitely much better than before. Details
and the topography issue needs to be straightened out to avoid problems at the end.
>The scale of the windows is too big. You will not have enough room for a bed wall and may be a
source of temperature concerns. The window sills are going to be too low which will potentially cause some
privacy issues if you have the windows open. The window trim does not have a hierarchy compared to what
you see in a more traditional craftsman style. I can appreciate the large doors at the back, but the other
windows are big, particularly the one located at the side of the house where the stair is.
>Some of the details need to be worked out. If it you are using Hardie siding then you need to know
how the corners will work. That is an area that the commission constantly has trouble with because it
changes the look of the elevation.
>There is a lot of exterior lighting shown. It needs to comply with the exterior lighting ordinance that we
have.
>The elevations and building sections do not reflect the site topography at all, the street and top of
curb was not shown. It isn ’t a tall house from the top of the hill, but it looks like it well exceeds thirty feet
from the average top of curb. The overall height needs to be looked at. Site issues need to be resolved.
Page 8City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>As my fellow commissioner said, the design needs to be credible; we need to be confident that what
we approve is buildable for the client but also for the neighbors. I appreciate the 3D renderings, but that is
not what the street looks like at all. I am missing the entire effect of being able to see three dimensionally
how this is going to sit on the site. The rendering should reflect what is actually proposed.
>Need to provide more information regarding the site and the front wall to be able to understand how
the front is going to be solved. This is definitely a huge improvement. In order for us to feel confident on
this project, more refinement needs to be done.
Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
e.1928 Devereux Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Liu, applicant and property owner; Qing Gan,
architect) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1928 Devereux Dr - Staff Report
1928 Devereux Dr - Attachments
1928 Devereux Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Oliver Qing Gan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Correct drafting errors. Drawings should indicate that the French doors are sliding doors and the deck
is existing to remain.
>The front door is very odd given the rest of the house. The house is leaning towards a modernist
direction, but the front door is a Dutch door design with a solid panel and glazing. That design element
needs rethinking. It seems very out of place on the facade. The general theme is similar to the last project
where we need to see some sense of credibility with what is being proposed.
>The wood handrail doesn't work and it would look like it was a temporary retrofit if it's built the way it's
proposed. It certainly wouldn't sustain a 200 pound lateral force which is required by code.
>The addition of the window is fine, but there's no reason it shouldn't be the same as the two windows
adjacent to it. The answers were rationalizations and there's no real reason for changing it.
>The trellis is an interesting idea but that entire area just doesn't hang together. It feels it was just
crammed in there as a response to the plan check comments and I don't think it works.
>The 2” x 4” window trim may work, but it doesn't feel like it's there yet.
Page 9City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>I appreciate the changes that were made in response to the comments, the windows upstairs and
bathroom windows for example, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence in what I'm seeing right now
largely because it just doesn't hang together. It feels like a patch work. Had I known we were going to end
up here tonight, I would have suggested that this be referred to a design review consultant then. I’m
hesitant to do it now, but it needs more work.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner on this. In a lot of ways when I look at the elevations and squint,
I like a lot of the window pattern. They're not oversized and they're not wrong; there are a lot of nice things
going on in terms of scale. But I'm a little concerned with the trims because if you held some of those
trims up against the existing house and tried to put together a vocabulary that works, what I'm seeing
might be challenging for somebody. I wish I was feeling more confident that what we're looking at to
approve could be built that way and we would all be happy at the end. So, I'd like to feel more confident as
well. A trellis is a start in that area, but it doesn't quite go far enough. It's just an eyebrow when there
needs to be something a little bit more substantial in that corner. In a way it looks good in elevation, but I
don't think it's going to reflect that way when I look at it three -dimensionally and what it does to make that
corner any better. There's an opportunity to make the deck a little nicer, it needs a little bit more to it .
Overall, it's going in the right direction, but there is some room for it to get better and it would be time well
spent so that what we approve can be executed and everybody knows what they're going to get.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. I do think this would be a great candidate for a design review
consultant. I know that they've done a really nice job in trying to tie it all together, but I feel that having
somebody to help them out to finish the project would be beneficial and might get them just over that
hurdle instead of having them come back.
>I feel compelled to give an example of the challenge that we face above and beyond the wood
handrail. If you look at the trellis end shape at the south elevation, you can see the same trellis end shape
when you're looking at the west elevation. It’s unclear if one is stacked on top of another, that's what I'm
seeing, maybe it makes more sense than I think it does. I now see how it's proposed to work. I was lost
to how it could be built, but it looks like it can be built. One of the reasons I said it is a mess is if you
look at the west elevation, I would expect that trellis to pickup on some line of the building but nothing is
lining up there, nothing seems to be associated with anything else. That's the problem, the proposed
project doesn't seem to be reflecting the other things going on in the house. One place doesn't reflect
what's going on in another place in an incredible way. It's very strange.
>In response to what my fellow commissioner was saying, we've spent a considerable amount of time
on this project now in two meetings. I’m not clear if the applicant is understanding all of the changes
cohesively to pull everything together. Enough commentary has been provided to assist them, but since
the design review consultant fee is a part of the fees paid for the design review, for expediency and
consistency of design, it would be a good idea to run it through a design review consultant to work with
this applicant to clean up the design, make it cohesive and make it make sense so we will be ready to
approve and move it forward the next time we review this project.
>It seems that might be a good motion we can get behind. I don't look at it as a punishment, but us
trying to find the best way forward to help the applicant get to the endgame and for all of us to be satisfied
that our direction is understood.
>It's just to expedite the process for the applicant. It doesn't need a lot of time from the design review
consultant and it would tie the whole project together quickly for them to get them through the system a
little bit quicker.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
f.1855 Rollins Road, zoned RRMU - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
commercial recreation use (theater company) in an existing commercial building. The
project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Page 10City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Bridget Wylie,
applicant; ANRM Holdings LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Keylon
1855 Rollins Rd - Staff Report
1855 Rollins Rd - Attachments
1855 Rollins Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Bridgette Wylie, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This feels very straightforward. Usually in these cases, we get stuck in a discussion about parking,
but as I read the application and the staff report, it looks like we're compliant with parking requirements. I
could make the findings for the conditional use permit. It seems like it doesn't overburden the community .
It’s not injurious to the property and adjacent tenants, and doesn't have a detrimental effect. It seems like
a good use for this applicant.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1273 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Peter Suen, Fifth Arch, applicant and
architect; Betty Chen and Kevin Lange, property owners) (142 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1273 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1273 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1273 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Peter Suen, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Page 11City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Consider using a different tree species for the front landscaping, the Redbud is diminutive.
>Fix drafting error showing the front door to match the 3D rendering with the proposed elevation.
>This is a modern farmhouse style. Consider a mullion pattern with a 2” x 2” grid overall on the windows
versus a 2” x 4” grid. That breaks everything down into more horizontally short and wide panes versus a
more vertical pane to accentuate the board and batten siding and the standing seam metal roof vertical
lines.
>Provide additional exterior lighting on the side of the garage doors.
>I find the farmhouse style to be the least convincing of all architectural styles to fit into anywhere in
Burlingame. This one particular strikes me as very odd. It's looks like a warehouse and that's partly
because everything is vertical. The thing that really bothers me the most is the standing seam metal roof
and its pitch; becomes very facade -like. I have come to tolerate standing seam metal roofs because they
typically are lower in pitch, 4:12 and this is probably 8:12. When they get pitched up like that, they
become very insistent in the facade of the building. This is extensive, really long, and unbroken which
makes it all the more egregious in my view. My fellow commissioner said something a while ago on
another project and it repeats here, that the vertical siding in this case drives directly into the ground, it
doesn't stop. In the other case, it was horizontal siding that went all the way to ground. You might say we
don't need to worry about that at this point in the project, but it's sort of representative of a certain na ïveté
about the design. It is equally bazaar that the standing seam metal roof has no ridge cap at all on this
building. There's going to be something up there and the skylights are pushed up against the top of that .
There's no way they get that close to the top of this building. There are all sorts of things that suggests
this building really needs to be looked at harder. It needs to be much more realistic; I don't find it credible
at all. There are some massing errors too. If you look at the side elevation of the two renderings with the
zip-line gutter that runs from the front to back that separates the upper floor from the lower floor, it's very
wedding cake. It's stacked with no gesture to try to break up that horizontality. I might have expected the
upper bay to saddleback down to break the line and it doesn't. There's a saddleback on the other side but
there's no trim. The vertical board and batten runs right to the ground. I'm going to suggest this goes to a
design review consultant because it needs some real attention to more realistic detail. I find it lacking in
detail.
>It's interesting that you came up with the warehouse analogy because I had that written on two
different sheets on my plans. The verticality of the board and batten siding coupled with the standing
seam metal roof, not to mention the four skylights on either side of the ridge, make it look very much like
a warehouse. The dual garage doors on sheet A 5.1 look like a storage unit; that's going to need help. I
agree with the comments about the window trim needing something to be shown there. The window types
need to be addressed a little bit more clearly. You've got a real jumbling of awning windows, double -hungs,
casements, and arch top French wood windows. I don't see a rhyme or reason to it. The verticality of the
board and batten is a little extreme; there are no breaks. There are no belly bands that you would typically
see a break at the plate line, so you don't have these lines that go all the way up. You have it where it's
offset, but on some of the sides and also at the front and the side of the gable, there should be a
horizontal board to break that, not just the two materials coming together. I'm leaning with my fellow
commissioner that a design review consultant could help on this one.
>That was the first thought when I opened up the packet, it was very vertical and top heavy. I agree that
this is a great candidate for a design review consultant.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. The neighborhood has a variety of style, this one could
potentially fit in. As designed, it looks like it would belong out in a rural environment than in the middle of
Burlingame. The verticality needs to be addressed. There are a lot of vertical lines that are really
Page 12City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
accentuating one direction. It's oversimplifying the look of the house and some of the heights. There's a
tall brow area over the windows to the right of the front door, that should be accounted for. The sizes of
the windows in relationship to the plate heights of the two floors should also be looked at further. I agree
that going through the process of the design review consultant would be a good direction to go to and get
some help to expedite this project.
>Definitely agree with all that has been said. It looked like a dance hall or a community theater out in
Grass Valley or something and it's not meant to be mean, it ’s just the first thing I thought of when I saw it .
It looks thin because of the verticality going all the way down to the ground and the lack of trim, but I ’m
sure it's very substantial. So, going to a design review consultant would be a great idea.
>I think the plate height needs to be revisited at the ground floor, it ’s a bit excessive. In general, the
project lacks in charm and the round top window which is where all the charm was trying to go, is not very
charming. It's just a semi-circular shape on top of the square.
>I agree with what most of you have said. It is out of scale for this lot. This particular structure has
maximized the FAR and height. It's actually going over if we took into consideration everything that is
being built. The floor-to-floor plate heights are too high. If you stood in that porch, it would be a huge
volume. Recognizing that windows are seven feet tall, there is still about three to four feet on top of that. It
does not have a homey atmosphere. I'm concerned about the materials going to the ground and not
finishing especially since it doesn't have a level lot. As you go up the side, you're going to have a bunch
cut off. It's not going to be constructed the way it's drawn in the computer. There needs to be thought
about how that finishes off.
>I'm concerned about the porch and the materials around it and the railing. I could foresee us really
having a difficult time with this after it is built because I'm not seeing the materials. I see a really poor tile
put on there where it would look unattractive. So, we need to be more specific on the materials around that
front area. It needs to be more than specifying wood fascia.
>The volumes need to come down, there's a 12 foot second floor open area. That's not something we
see in these homes. It would be 16 feet if we didn't have to put in the ceiling in order to deal with the floor
area ratio, that would have taken as a double count.
>We need colors. A standing seam metal roof of this size and magnitude with the wrong color is going
to look horrible. I went by another modern farmhouse that just finished not that long ago and it's one
hundred percent white. No charm, no trim. It was poorly done and we've had people call it out. When you
have something like this that's trying to be so different than the other things in our neighborhood, you have
to do it well to make it work. There's one on Balboa Avenue, somewhere in the 1300 block, that looked a
lot nicer and did a lot better job of combining materials. It’s a better composition that might not be a bad
one to look at for some inspiration. The no trim thing, it's going to be no detail, I don't think we're going to
like that. I agree with my fellow commissioner that without a belly band or other horizontal trims to provide
scale to this, it is a warehouse. So, it does need a lot of work and it's too big for the lot it's on. It needs to
be rethought.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the application
to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
b.1561 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance
and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a second story addition to an
existing single-unit dwelling. (Robert Medan, applicant and architect; Paul and Robin
Edmondson, property owners) (90 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1561 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1561 Drake Ave - Attachments
1561 Drake Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Page 13City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse noted that she met with the
homeowners to tour the inside of the home and outside of the property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an
overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Robert Medan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>On the front elevation, compared to the house, the door looks a little small.
>This feels like one of those projects where it will be very helpful to see some 3D renderings, especially
how it would look like from Drake Avenue. This site is one of the very odd ones in Burlingame, which
strikes me that the rules don ’t apply like an Italian hill town where you can ’t force it into regularity, which
means you are ignoring the facts of the situation. I have a lot of sympathy for this being rambunctious, it
doesn’t really bother me given where it sits and the elements surrounding it. A 3D rendering will be helpful
to visualize what will be on the property from the street. My guess is that it will not have a huge impact
because the way this house presented itself is the garage, even the front door doesn ’t show itself. I feel
sympathetic letting this be what it ’s got to be, but I ’m interested to know what we will see from the place
where it matters.
>I will have to agree with my fellow commissioner. Personally I think the rule book does not suitably
apply to these sites in this area. We have looked at a couple of projects in these dead ends before and
the lots get really crazy back there, but they are also very cool. Overall, I really like the design. I can
support the Side Setback Variances based on the conditions of the lot. I don ’t think they are going
overboard with the square footage, they are keeping it well under the allowable FAR. I can support the
Special Permit for the declining height envelope on the left side of the house because it is not a square
house on a square lot. We need to take that into consideration. I also agree that a 3D rendering will be
helpful the next time around. Based on driving that street, everything is kind of jammed in there; this does
not appear to be intrusive or invasive of the neighbors’ privacies so I am in support of the project.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners and would like to give a lot of credit to the architect for
attempting to create all these elevations, because you can ’t see any of these views anywhere from around
the house. The house, as you approach it, has a lot of charm. It is a very nicely designed home. When we
see the 3D renderings, I would guess that we would barely see the tips of the roof line that is being
proposed for the addition upstairs. I appreciate that the homeowners shared with me their kitchen design,
including how their cabinetry will be laid out, which substantiate the reason why there are no windows on
that elevation. I am in support of the Side Setback Variances because they really have no choice. I also
can support the Special Permit for the declining height envelope. They have done a good job of keeping
the addition concise and the core of the home where they could possibly add on. It will be nice to see a
rendering, but it is not a deal breaker for me.
>As my fellow commissioner mentioned, there is something going on with the front door, but would like
to see something a little bit different there. It feels like the front door needs a little more work.
>I’m not opposed to have a blank wall, this is not a deal breaker, but it would be a really good
opportunity to put something on that wall to break up the massing. Consider putting in some vines, trellis
or fake windows to make it a little interesting because you are still walking up to that house.
>Those are some good points that my fellow commissioner brought up. Looking at the plans, the front
door is proposed to be 3’-0” x 8’-0”, would suggest to look at the scale of the door as it may be the reason
why it seems off. Additionally, the homeowner shared with me that they are planning for a green wall with
vines and trellis on that blank wall outside the kitchen.
Page 14City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>You have a very charming garage area, it ’s got a lot of character. Consider the same architectural
elements for the front door with columns and a beautiful arch, it is perfectly proportioned in the garage .
That would help take up some of the blank wall and be substantial for the front door area.
>I like the project. The concern I had during the site visit was the second floor windows facing the
neighbor. I know it is tight in there, but as long as everybody is in agreement of what is there then I am
not worried.
>There is an opportunity for the porch area to be a little bigger, I agree that the existing condition is not
attractive. It could involve the very nice elements that you have in the front. You’ve got some really nice
planting that enhance the structure. It’s also nice to have a larger porch area. The blank wall does not
bother me at all and it can be a great landscape opportunity. I think it is a great solution. With the creek
in the back, the deck and all of the structure in the back, I would encourage to discuss the project with
your structural engineer early.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
c.1132 Killarney Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Robert Criscuolo, applicant and property
owner; Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, designer) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1132 Killarney Ln - Staff Report
1132 Killarney Ln - Attachments
1132 Killarney Ln - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Joseph Sabel, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Correct drafting errors to avoid conflicting window notes.
>Consider doing a chimney for the fireplace, which is a nice architectural detail, rather than the
proposed bump-out on the side of the house. The chimney, being a zero clearance wouldn't need to clear
the roof, so you can go up a couple of feet. If it's something you would consider looking at, it would add to
the look of the house as opposed to just having a box seemingly attached to the side of house.
>Show proposed exterior lighting locations on the plans.
>Suggests stacking the large sliding doors at the rear and creating a pocket wall to the left on the
exterior elevation, which is very dramatic and the doors disappear. It thickens the wall and it's really not an
inexpensive solution, but a nice solution.
Page 15City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Provide 3D rendering so we could see some of the details a little bit better.
>There's a lot to like about this project. It has a lot of good things going for it and is consistent in its
style. I find the large panel glass windows at the rear to not fit very well with the rest of the architecture. It
would be nice to see those things be stackable, sort of disappear and open up entirely. The scale as
depicted feels wrong but I like that it's going to open the inside to the outside. The front and the back
elevations are pretty good except for the windows. The side elevations leave something to be desired and
have that continuous horizontal element, which when viewed from the roof plan and the two side walls feels
like a pancake. There's no attempt to break up the continuous horizontal element on either of the two
sides and that diminishes the architecture of the project somewhat. I'd like to see that addressed. There
are ways to very easily break that horizontal element and make it much more nuanced as a tidy little
craftsman project. All in all, it's a good project.
>I'm conflicted. First of all, I love the current house. It's one of the most lovely houses in the
neighborhood. Visiting the site, the use of wood shingle caught me off guard in a craftsman style home. I
cannot find a single shingle home around the Village Park neighborhood. It's looks very busy. There were
a lot of houses with horizontal wood siding and a lot with stucco. Looking at the design guidelines, it says
compatibility of architectural style, the character, and mass with that of an existing neighborhood. The
mass and the bulk doesn't bother me, there are plenty of two -story houses there. But the proposed
material bothers me. I love wood shingle, but it needs something to make it fit back in the neighborhood.
>I agree that the neighborhood has more houses with stucco and horizontal siding. But I've seen some
shingle homes in the other Ray Park neighborhoods. When they're more painted rather than natural wood
color, they tend to fit in a little bit better. Overall the project is nice looking; I do like it. My previous
comments are really not so much criticisms of what we've got, it ’s just that we need to see a little bit more
so that it's in the record. It would be a good idea to have more detailing around the window trims and we
know that we're getting 1” x 4” and 1” x 6”, etc. It's good to have some of the details around the gable
ends. Similarly, my questions around the front porch, that's an area of great concern, having those
materials nailed down and working is important. The big glass doors at the rear of the house could be
incredible, but they are extremely expensive. So I would recommend that before coming back and locking
into something that you're not going to want to change or have to come back to us with, it's important that
you understand the cost and effort into making those happen. That would be a wise choice. There is also
a good opportunity for a rendering on this, it doesn ’t have to be photo realistic, even some of the black
and white renderings that we get have some texture to it and enable us to see more three -dimensionally
how the various elevations work, and it's a vast improvement over just elevations.
>If we can get those comments on the window types cleaned up, that would be helpful. When I looked
at the drawings, the shingle graphic was a little bit disturbing, partly because I know the neighborhood
pretty well, but also because it's probably just the CAD design program that spits out this particular
texture of shingle. My guess is the shingles would be a traditional shingle that would be square cut on the
bottom and appear in horizontal rows. There’s a house on Eastmoor Road down by Village Park, it actually
is nice looking. There may be one or two shingle houses in that neighborhood although there aren't many .
To my fellow commissioner's comment about the horizontality of the side elevations, that ’s along the lines
of what I was saying about the chimney. If you incorporated a chimney, broke the roof plane even by a
foot or two, and made it of a different material, it would break that side up and help the plain look of that
one side.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Loftis, to place on the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff6 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
d.1855 -1881 Rollins Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design
Review, Density Bonus with Waivers /Modifications, Community Benefit Bonuses, and
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new, 405-unit multi-unit residential development .
Page 16City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
(Scott Youdall, The Hanover Company, applicant; Jon Ennis, BDE Architecture, architect;
SJ Amoroso Properties Co, E and S Property LLC, and ANRM Holdings LLC, property
owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Staff Report
1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Attachments
1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Scott Youdall and Ian Murphy, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I love the plaza and I like the sculptures.
>Wondering if there was an opportunity to do a retail use or something that is a little bit more
interactive for the public, maybe on a short -term basis, because I'm in that area all the time and I don't
see any foot traffic. I don't know why people would use these plazas. I think they're great, but I don't see
anybody using them because there's no reason to be walking around down there. So, until the whole area
gets a little bit more developed, I ’m hoping we can see some small businesses in there that would
generate some pedestrian traffic.
>Consider using the culvert as part of the landscape area. There's an opportunity to develop something;
you have open space there that you can take advantage of.
>Looking at the rendering of the north end of the project, driving from Millbrae towards your site, there
is a large round wall that can be an opportunity for a wall art, a way to recognize that you are turning into
Burlingame and Rollins Road. There's potentially a graphic or a texture opportunity to engage the entry of
your project at your main plaza. The artwork is a nice piece. I like the plaza there. But there is something
bigger that could go vertical in that area that would give more sense of arrival since you are the first
property in. Overall, I like the architecture and project. Consider something that can potentially provide a
gateway to Burlingame from Millbrae.
>This is environmental scoping, the traffic has got to be a big issue for us to study. I can't think of any
new environmental scoping matters, it is really the usual items.
>In general, I like the project. It's hard not to like this kind of development happening in the city and
Bay Area and the housing is desperately needed. It's quite a large project and it's struggling a little bit not
be too monotonous. The length is 300 plus feet along Rollins Road and it was a wise move to break it in
the middle as you have done so. The question is, is that enough? The gesture at the corners are nice,
they do something to inflect those important spots in the architecture. However, it feels monotonous in the
middle. Consider being more free and playful with the balconies, they are very structured which just adds
to the general structure of the 300 feet between the two end points. I looked to see if they were linked to
some special units. I don ’t see any rhyme or reason to them other than they're stacked on top of each
other on identical units. Suggest hiding or burying those balconies, they can go up and down and provide
some play against the very structured surface for 300 feet. That provides a new level of reading beyond
that major break in the middle. It is the nature of these kinds of multi -unit residential projects to be
structured similarly to one another. You've done a good job to try to address the monotony. I love the
metal snake that runs along each of the corners so there are interesting things going on. It could always
Page 17City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
be improved. You could jazz up the corners a little bit more, perhaps. The beauty of the project really is
that, it's going to be like South Beach or Mission Bay. It's going to be years before we see the kind of foot
traffic that we need to see down there and the ability to support retail, but it will come. It's just going to
take a long time. There's no way to rush it. But anchor projects like this will be the catalyst for the
development we're looking for in this part of the city, so I would say in general, well done.
>I would agree with my fellow commissioner. It's a good development; I like the layout of everything. I
like the interior spaces where you have community areas for the people who live there. But again, I'm
concerned about those plaza areas and how they're going to be used. I too, like the areas like in China
Basin and specifically around the ball park. But as I walk around there before and after games, I've
noticed the ground floor street -facing units are often shuttered. It looks nice in your rendering because
they're lit up, but that's not what you're going to see. If there's foot traffic there, they're not going to want
everyone looking in their doors. But if you gave the opportunity for a small amount of retail, you have a
captive audience here. There's going to be over 500 people living in this place, so you have the opportunity
and at a future date, maybe they can be converted to living spaces. There's a lot of flexibility when you
build. I don’t see the foot traffic happening. I like the idea of plazas and they may be developed further as
some of the commissioners have suggested. I would like to see if we can generate a reason for people to
be there out on the street and not just get into their cars, drive to work and leave the area. But overall,
good job.
>I'm getting tired of the monotonous height. You weren't at your maximum height so it might be
refreshing to have some more interesting areas. Possibly something at the bottom, it would be logical that
those would be at the lower level. Because it ’s large, has so many units, and because of its location, it
feels like the right project to look into some variations on certain areas which would tie into it being a
gateway.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would like to see some height and different variations of
height. That was one thing that just felt a little bit too monotonous. I think we need to have some coffee
shops or something. You have so many people there that there are opportunities here to be wasted if we
don't create some retail space on the bottom floor. I want to see an invigoration of Rollins Road and we
can do that if we create smaller retail spaces that a lot of people can go to and enjoy. We are missing an
opportunity here if we don't do that.
>I agree as well. This property has some unique ability to bring in retail on the ground floor because of
the close proximity to the In -n-Out burger and that whole complex is within walking distance. There's a lot
of traffic at the intersection of Adrian Road and Rollins Roads so it's not a far stretch for someone to go to
this block and visit a cafe, restaurant or retail services that could be offered because this location is at
the gateway and in a much better position than further down on Rollins Road. I would like to encourage
that to be reviewed further. Also, the corners have some great opportunities for whether it's even more
artwork or a stronger statement for that gateway to our North Rollins Road area. It's calling for that and
would help break some of the monotony that some of my fellow commissioners were talking about. The
design is looking quite nice and has put a lot of work into it so far.
>Concerned with the swimming pool being in shade all day long at the bottom of a five -story building .
Consider bringing it up onto a higher level so that it actually will get used. We're not in Hawaii where we
want that shade in the swimming pool. Otherwise, a really nice job and thank you for your presentation.
>I agree. It's a nice project overall. There are opportunities always. Going back to the idea of the
gateway, we do have some gateway monuments at various areas of the city. We have our lighted obelisks
at either end of Burlingame Avenue. We have the old Broadway sign going across the road that helps
celebrate the entrance into some of our neighborhoods. Being the first property from the north, you almost
have the responsibility of being that introduction to what is going to be our newest neighborhood. In hopes
that we are going to be creating a more pedestrian friendly environment coming down Rollins Road and not
just being the industrial road that it has been for 30 years. There's an opportunity, whether that involves
the building architecture on the corner or it's something out in the plaza that gives that gateway feel, it is
something to work with. Otherwise, I was pretty satisfied with the drawings and what you're putting forward .
I hope to be able to see this project get further along.
>We've got the setbacks in the rear and then the floor area ratio which both could be affected
differently depending on that parcel in the back. For me personally, it didn't feel like exceeding the FAR
seemed out of whack or we were stuffing too much into too small of a lot. The setbacks seemed
Page 18City of Burlingame
March 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
reasonable because it's not backing up to anything that seems unreasonable. This seems like something
we would be able to stomach until the time come.
>If that swath involves taking out trees to do something, then I personally would have concerns with
that.
There was no motion from the Planning Commission, as this application is required to return on
the Regular Action Calendar.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no Director Reports.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on March 14, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 24, 2022, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $708.00, which includes noticing costs.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m.
Page 19City of Burlingame