HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.05.13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
May 13, 2013 - 7:00 p.m.
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sargent called the May 13, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney
Kathleen Kane
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve the minutes of the April 22,
2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
In some instances Chair Gaul is referred to as Commissioner Gaul. Corrections should be made to
be consistent throughout.
Page 4, Item 2 (1616 Easton Drive), Commission comments bullet 4, add “allow for design and
aesthetic considerations, different from a variance.”
Page 4, Item 2 (1616 Easton Drive), Commission comments bullet 9, add at the beginning of the
statement that it is the Commission is not pushing for a second story….
Page 11, Item 7 (748 Paloma Avenue), Commission comments bullet 6, add “but a two-story
solution requires better articulation…”
Page 12, Item 7 (748 Paloma Avenue), Additional Commission comments bullet 2, add “true divided
light windows are not required…”
Page 13, Item 8 (2415 Hillside Drive), neighboring resident comments, add a bullet specifying to add
a massing diagram.
Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Yie abstaining).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
No one spoke from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items for review.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
2
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Sargent asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests.
1. 1450 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED CAC – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR
FAÇADE CHANGES TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KEN LIDICKER, MBH ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RICHARD DEWEY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Commissioner Terrones moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Chair Sargent called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:08 p.m.
City Attorney Kane noted that as a change to procedures, Commissioners will be asked to disclose any ex
parte contacts with applicants on the action items as they come forward. In most cases Commissioners will
have spoken with the applicant because it is the expectation that Commissioners visit the project site. It is
anticipated that Commissioners will have had ex parte contacts, but they should be noted for the record.
The rough content of any discussions with the applicants should be disclosed.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 270 EAST LANE, ZONED MMU – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW MEZZANINE
ADDITION IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (GARY COHN, CA DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; GARY DIEBEL, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (ITEM
CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 22, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Has staff visited the site to verify the spaces? (Strohmeier: No, document in staff report from
contractor hired to restripe site has given certification.
What was there before is not in drawings? (Strohmeier: Yes.)
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Gary Cohn represented the applicant:
Changes to proposed application include reduced amount of mezzanine to reduce amount of square
footage. Needed 87 spaces before, now 86 per code. Providing 86.
Before spaces 1-7 on western edge were not striped, it was a mistake. Hired a professional striping
company and restriped entire deck to comply with the plan. Letter in staff report ensuring what is
striped matches plan.
Added motorcycle parking along parapet wall.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
3
Keep clear area, has not seen any cars parked where it says keep clear no parking.
Western parapet wall, able to delineate and restripe 14-feet wide
Never had a problem with ingress/egress.
W alls on northern side encourage employees to pull completely forward, has not had problem.
Tenants hoping to expand. Tech start-ups competing for same type of talent, offering same types of
amenities. These types of spaces are very useful, atypical, non-office uses. Wants the mezzanine
to put non-traditional uses upstairs.
Because of unusual tandem parking checked with other peninsula cities. San Mateo allows tandem
configurations on a case-by-case basis. San Carlos does allow in commercial districts under certain
conditions.
Dropped off photos in file April 8th and 9th 25%, 29% spaces went unused. Photos from 31 of 86
going unused. At 3:45 today 19 spaces empty. Hoping to provide pictures in afternoon, at 5:00
70% empty. At May 10th 2:30 29 empty spaces going unused. More pictures from different days,
showing same thing.
Building is unique, could be a great prototype. Directly across from the train station, building being
used with nontraditional spaces.
Never had a parking problem in using as a tandem deck.
Commission questions and comments:
How many total employees in building? (Cohn : Doesn’t know. Many telecommute.)
On 8th counted 51 cars. If can relate the number of employees, if more people are employed
concern that people are not taking Caltrain. Employees will get frustrated and use street parking.
Can’t tell decrease in use because does not know how many people. Trying to draw a parallel to
number of cars and number of employees showing up. (Strohmeier: Code does not account for
number of employees, it goes by square footage.)
Not concerned about number of spaces, but tandem set-up. Concerned how they will be used.
(Cohn: Today there were 20 empty spaces at 3:45 p.m. Even if Teleport grows, shows number of
tandem spaces not being used. Other photos show tandem being used. Employees use the buddy
system. Comes down to tenants being happy. If employees happy, tenants happy, he’s happy.)
Thought Josh McFarland said other tenants are more car-intensive. (Cohn: Jobville has the highest
concentration of cars. If Teleport takes over the entire building would be a less car-intensive
business.
Has Zip Car or a shared service been looked at? (Cohn: Josh was looking into it.)
City does not approve or accept tandem by policy, but we as commission have accepted as a
unique condition the existence of these tandem spaces. Wanted to see an alignment between 86
stalls and amount of sq ft being accommodated by stalls. Has already accepted tandem stalls as
mitigation, also accepts 300 sq ft since that is the City’s policy. So not a leap to accept.
Would like to see a condition that memorializes management. The onus is on the building owner,
because the tenancy will change. If they get sloppy with the management of it, there will be
problems with parking on the street. Needs a parking management plan in perpetuity. Can accept if
can craft a condition overseen by owner but accepted by tenants. (Cohn: Spaces are numbered,
each space is marked. Each employee knows where to go. Buddy system is enforced. It just
works. If there is a problem, it will be his problem.)
So you can write this up in leases? (Cohn: Happy to include it in his leases. Never had a problem,
can incorporate into leases in future.)
Feels very tight up there. Sees the limitations of the tandem configuration with regards to the depth.
Dimensions of tandem space would be double of regular space. 28 feet not enough for two spaces.
Has to know what types of cars employees are driving. If they have a big car would park on street
rather than tandem. (Cohn: San Carlos, Millbrae said dimensions are a case-by-case basis.
Burlingame allows for 2 feet of curb cut to be included in the back-up.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
4
Handicap spaces and path of travel – will the City accept this? (Strohmeier: Yes worked with
Building. Two ADA spaces at the ground level.)
These are not ideal spaces. Wants to see management plan. Would like a condition that provides
incentives for employees who choose to take Caltrain. Would not be unusual to have an incentive
program. Lean towards additional mitigation measures.
Will have to look at our ratios again. See if relevant for how we live now.
Including for buildings close to public transit. There are locations in Burlingame where cars are not
needed.
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
April 9, 2013, Sheets A0.1 through A8.1, and that any changes to the floor area, use or parking
which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this
Parking Variance;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 13, 2013, January 31, 2013 and December
10, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's December 27, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s December
14, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshall’s December 10, 2012 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator’s
December 10, 2012 memo shall be met;
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as
well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
6. that the owner shall work with Planning staff to develop a Parking and Transportation Management
Plan that would be put in place by the owner and enforced by the owner, and would include options
for mass transit incentive programs.”
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
Would like to see a condition crafted for management of this practice, maybe look at in a year.
Can be difficult to have something come back in a year. Would have to come back if there is a
complaint anyway.
Can we mandate that require public transit incentives? (Kane: Would like to see condition worded
that subject to review by planning staff. Incentive structure for TDM.)
Can we add a condition that states that the owner work with staff to develop a TDM plan?
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
5
If does not have a lease for the new space, could there be a condition? (Kane: If owner wants to
impose on future leases could make that judgment. But for existing leases with existing tenants
can’t change those at this time.)
Work with staff to craft the condition.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:48 p.m.
3. 2301 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – RESUBMITTAL OF PROJECT THAT WAS DENIED W ITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (TIM
RADUENZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PHILOMENA TERRY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 8, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING)
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant:
In last revision made attempt to create privacy for neighbors.
Tree house will be removed.
Trees have been added to the plan.
Access from the side yard has been removed.
Only a change in use.
There are many non-conformities in the neighborhood.
Commission questions and comments:
Was a variance at one time needed for raising the plate height on the second story? (Gardiner: The
existing building is non-conforming. The discussion should only focus on the proposed change to
use.)
If this is not approved, can the volume remain and the use would be storage? (Gardiner: Yes.)
Have the revisions been presented to the neighbors? (Raduenz: No.)
Submitted list from landscape designer for trees. Particular type, or one from list? (Raduenz: Would
like recommendations.) Would like one of the deciduous trees on the list. Lots of space between
trees. (Raduenz: Would get 36” trees.)
Have a sense of whether the trees would block light into the neighboring properites? (Raduenz:
Would not if pruned.)
What is the size of the existing main residence? (Raduenz: 3,190 square feet, 3 bedrooms)
Have they looked at scenario where Bedroom 1 faces pool, even eliminate window above garage.
(Raduenz: Could look at that but it would limit rumpus room.)
If turned into hobby area would shield from two sides.
Where is entry now? Would be better to have entry where the equipment room is. (Raduenz: Is an
option.)
Saw supporting letters from April and May.
Public comments:
Meredith Thacker, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
6
Next door neighbor at 2223 Easton.
Written several letters over the months, has been in touch with applicants’ son Greg Terry. Not in
favor of change in use. Concerns over privacy, noise.
Loved the secluded nature of the property. Houses surrounding all set back from each other.
Chose house to get setbacks. When bought house had concerns about garage and assured by the
realtor (Greg Terry) that the room over the garage would be hobby room.
Someone will still be walking down driveway near bedroom. Concerned about noise from unit, light
above garage. Will be done more frequently with people living there.
Large front windows still have sight-lines into bedrooms.
Also doing internal remodeling.
Existing home at 2301 has 4 bedrooms, acting as 5 bedroom, all spaces are used as bedrooms
including formal dining room.
Roy Ludwell, Burlingame, spoke regarding this item:
Was there when it was built. Built as a storage. Roof was three feet higher than garage. After the
building inspector left they took the three foot studs away and added eight-foot studs. Said building
inspector said it was OK, can’t believe that.
It is a big structure that does not belong in the neighborhood.
Window on easterly side effects his property, does not belong there. Hopes tree house has time
limit.
Lives at 2217 Easton.
Julie Carlson, spoke regarding this item:
Designer and homeowner.
Second story was built illegally, should not be expanded upon by a change in use. If this Conditional
Use permit is allowed sets a bad precedence, have a negative effect on the community.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
How many spaces is the main house required to have? Looks like there is a 2-car garage.
(Strohmeier: 6 bedrooms requires two spaces.)
Chair Sargent re-opened the public comment period:
Greg Terry, property owner:
3 bedroom house with two parking spaces.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
There are other options aside from what is being shown here. Not in support of the application as it
stands – being too close to property line.
It is a large lot, there are other options. Would be viable to make a first-floor addition.
Improvements but to make a findings for a variance would not impact adjoining property.
Hard to argue hardship for such large lot.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
7
It is a Conditional Use Permit application, not a Variance.
Having a hard time with lineage of construction of approval and subsequent approval of
nonconforming condition that would not be approvable today.
Structure could not be built today, and yet being asked to intensify use.
Commissioner Gaul moved to deny the application, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Chair Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
Could come back with something else
Surprised it came back again. It is not substantially different.
There is a condition that if it is denied, the ‘tree house’ accessory structure at the rear, left corner of
the lot shall be demolished; the property owner shall be responsible for all necessary permits from
the City of Burlingame, Department of Fish and Game, and the Army Corps of Engineers for any of
the work that is conducted in the creek and sewer easements.
Architect did come back with changes . Such a large lot, should not pursue the easiest path.
Deny without prejudice if the basic project could be approved.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m.
4. 1616 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND
NEW DETACHED GARAGE (FORM + ONE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MATTHEW WOLFE,
PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Revisions are good. Still requires a variance but continues an existing non-conforming setback.
Can support a Variance in this instance.
The application is a good one.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
May 1, 2013, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, FAC, A1.0, AB1, B1.0, A2.0 through A6.0 and L1.0;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
8
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 1, March 29 and March 8, 201 memos, the
City Arborist's March 29 and March 19, 2013 memos, the City Engineer's April 1, 2013 memo, the
Fire Marshal's March 7, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's April 4 and March 11, 2013
memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
9
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m.
Chair Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda
Item 5 (2415 Hillside Drive) as he is the property owner. He left the City Council Chambers and Vice Chair
Davis took over as Chair.
5. 2415 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SARGENT CONSTRUCTION, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Gaul indicated that he had had an ex parte communication, in that he had spoken with the
property owner about the application.
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
None
Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Gaul – has spoken with applicant
James Chu, San Mateo, represented the applicant.
Made the changes suggested at last meeting.
Provided massing comparison between two adjacent neighbors.
The project complies with declining height envelopes and has separation from the neighbor on the
left and on the right. It’s approximately 19 feet on the left and 16 feet on the right.
Commission comments:
On Sheet A.4, clarification of whether the building is within the declining height envelope?
(Strohmeier: The portion on the left meets the window enclosure exemption allowed in the code.)
On Sheet A.4 (and A.5) the column base should be stone instead of shingle.
Appreciate the overall height and massing comparison. Hope it satisfies the neighbors’ comments.
The project benefits from having side setbacks and driveways on the adjoining properties. It fits with
a nice pattern of driveway and setback.
The design looks really good – likes the architectural style.
Knows that the rear fireplace is further back, but has a direct vent on the fireplace from the family
room with the direct vent sitting out there and without a chimney. Not going to hold the project up
but has an objection to it. Prefers a chimney.
Massing is fitting in well with the neighborhood.
Public comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
10
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
April 29, 2013, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1, L.2 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, with
the amendment that the base of the columns on the front porch as shown on sheets A.4 and A.5
may be stone material rather than shingle;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 1, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's April 11,
2013 and March 7, 2013, memos, the Parks Supervisor’s April 16, 2013 and March 11, 2013
memos, the Fire Marshal's March 7, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's April 18, 2013
and March 11, 2013 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
11
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Add the condition that the column base may be stone, rather than shingle.
Vice Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0.
(Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
Chair Sargent returned to the dais.
6. 2315 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE,
TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PHILIP KAHN TR AND MARILYN ELPERIN TR,
PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange represented the applicant.
Changed the plans a bit, changed the vent on front and entry porch.
Reconfigured chimneys and fireplaces to open up the back area. A big chunk of square footage is
in covered porch area, about 650 square feet.
On the landscape plan the replacement tree out front on plan should be a 48” box.
Will be submitting an FYI in the future to change the steam shower window in the Master Bathroom.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
12
Commission comments:
Is there a fireplace in the Living Room? Where is the chimney? Is it a direct vent? Design calls for
a stone chimney, would be a nice architectural feature. (Grange: A chimney would only show a little
bit, would come through the upstairs bathroom and dormer. Would make sense if the fireplace was
at the side of the house.)
Most windows have trim, except on second floor egress window. Could use trim.
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
May 1, 2013 sheets A0.0 through A3.3, PW.1, L1.0, L1.5, L1.6, L2.0, L2.5 and Topographic Survey
Plan, with the amendment that the replacement tree at the front of the property listed as 36” box
shall be 48” box size.
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 7 and April 10, 2013 memos, the City
Engineer's April 1, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 4, 2013 memo, the City Arborist's March
11 and April 12, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's April 18 and March 5, 2013 memos
shall be met;
5. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc., dated
October 9, 2012;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
13
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on
the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by
the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Add condition that the replacement tree be 48” box instead of 36” as shown on plans.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
7. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND
HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING, AND A NEW DECK
AREA OFF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN GUMAS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
14
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent disclosed that he met with owner at 3 Belvedere.
Commissioner Terrones listened to the recording for the April DR study meeting.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Jessie Geurse represented the applicant.
Requested story poles, built them.
Received letter from neighbor at 3 Belvedere Court regarding objections to the deck. The property
owner submitted a rebuttal.
Visited site today to get a better grasp of issues from adjacent neighbor. Had previously reached
out to neighboring owners to see if there were any concerns, did not hear until today.
Commission comments:
Are the windows in the upper right hand corner Master Bedroom windows? (For Gumas residence)
(Geurse: There was always a Master Bedroom facing that side of the house.) Was there always a
deck on the second floor too? (Geurse: Yes.)
Does the heavy outline on the site plan outline the house or the deck? (Geurse: Outline of house.
There are construction constraints with the issue of the easement.)
This is a large lot. Did they look at other options for expanding the deck? (Geurse: There are oak
trees in the way, and the easement. It is a fantastic view, trying to gain as much of the view as
possible.
Understandable why trying to capture the view.
Seems like there are places where the deck can go without going right to the setback.
Is there an issue with tree? (Geurse: It is a baby tree, the tree trimming was done by the gardener.
The tree belongs to the Gumases.)
Are the windows vinyl ? (Geurse: No, they are aluminum clad.)
Public comments:
Cinda Bailey, 3 Belvedere Court, spoke regarding this item:
Husband was at last meeting and it looked like a deck. When orange plastic came up it was a
massive shock.
Spends a lot of time in play area, spent a lot of money to create a flat area. It will be fully exposed to
the owners of 2600 Summit Drive.
Would like to ask to push the deck back a little.
Argue over whose property the tree is on.
On the paper the deck does not look bad, but in person it has much more of an impact.
Commission comments:
What does the orange mesh show? (Geurse: Indicates main deck level. Majority of dropped deck
will be lower by 18 inches.)
Do the owners of 2600 Summit know what is being planned in the back yard of 3 Belvedre? (Bailey:
Under construction. Play equipment in front not yet installed.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
15
Is there any reason why the recessed area where the circle steps down could not be rotated towards
easement? It would still be a hugely substantive deck. The area is massive. Fully recognize that
there is a constraint with the easement.
Would like to superimpose the 3 Belvedere site plan onto the proposed 2600 Summit site plan.
Show with different uses.
(Geurse – From below can see deck is pushed back rather far into the shrubs and trees. Could also
add screening trees in conjunction with rotating.)
The view is spectacular, but when deck is used it will be very imposing.
The Commission looks very closely at view protection issues. It’s a thin line with protecting privacy
issues. Issues of compromise, harder with privacy. Not familiar with any law about protecting
privacy. (Kane: Design review issue of interface with property.)
Anne Menken, 2614 Summit, spoke regarding this item:
Trees between properties are currently blocking her view. If there are more trees, will then block her
view so does not want to have requirement that more trees be planted. Wants to have her view
back to the airport.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Should be continued so commissioners can visit the neighboring property.
Would the continuance allow the applicant to revise the plans? (Kane: Continue to a date uncertain
to allow revisions.)
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. This item
concluded at 9:29 p.m.
8. 3088 ALCAZAR DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A CABANA AND FOR ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS (TOM
MCCARVILLE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; HAROLD ROMANOWITZ, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Tom McCarville represented the applicant:
Comfortable-sized house but does not have play space.
Cabana is to facilitate outdoor living.
Client is not interested in second unit. Just wants a cabana.
Existing in-ground swimming pool. Wanted a locker room-style facility for the pool.
For guests, want it to be comfortable.
Built with flat roof, 9’ plate height. Didn’t want to have a pitched roof.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
16
Skylights are greater than 10 feet from grade.
The two neighbors most affected by the project support it.
Flat roof will be finished as a living roof with sod. Will not be an offensive roof structure to look at.
Commission comments:
Is the site level? (McCarville: Yes.) The plate 9’-9.5’ plate height will feel so much lower because it
is situated higher than the neighbors.
Hot water? (McCarville: Instant hot water heater.) Electrical? (McCarville: Subpanel for the cabana,
run underground.)
Appreciates reaching out to neighbors.
Davis - Where did round window come from? (McCarville: Just liked it.)
Public comments:
(A member of the public came to speak about an unrelated planning matter. He was confused by
the post card he received in the mail for the 3088 Alcazar item. Planning Manager Gardiner gave
him his card and subsequently followed up on the matter.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
April 1, 2013, sheets A-1, A-2 and A-9, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the
accessory structures shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Variance,
Hillside Area Construction Permit and Conditional Use Permits, as well as any other exceptions to
the code granted here, will become void;
3. that the accessory structure shall only be used as a cabana and accessory living quarters, with a
wet bar and small bathroom containing a sink, toilet and shower; any changes to the use of the
accessory structure shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 27, 2013 and April 12, 2012 memos, the
City Engineer’s April 16, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal’s April 16, 2012 memo, the Parks
Supervisor’s March 27, 2013 and April 16, 2012 memos and the Stormwater Coordinator’s April 12,
2012 memo shall be met;
5. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued
and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District;
6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; and
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
17
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
The design of the house with eaves and atrium really limits the lot coverage.
The downhill slope reduces the impact to neighbors.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.
9. 1821 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
FENG XUE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant.
Owners were working with original architect, did not get it approved. Spoke to him with ideas. Plan
approved in September 2011; the original architect got the permit.
Having difficulty with contractor over the past six months getting him to show up and do project as
supposed to. Range of changes, some approved as FYI changes, other changes made they were
unaware of that were not approved although contractor was supposed to get changes approved.
Commission comments:
Columns in front seem really skimpy. They were supposed to be more substantial.
Was the trellis over the garage asked for? (Meyer: Don’t remember, but it was their way to soften
the space above the garage door. Just was never finished by the contractor.)
OK with stone coming up to windows, but then does not continue around.
The changes are to things in the original design, that made the original design better, and mitigated
the issues. The changes have revised things that had made the design better. (Meyer: Thought the
glass into the front door was an intrusion to their privacy.)
The style of the new front door does not match.
Is the front door really a foot taller? (Meyer: Yes it is taller.)
Glass was removed from the door.
Why changes to material? Dark gray marble.
Marble in the front, stone on the side. Only thing worse than not continuing is changing materials.
Wants the original stone. It brings a more cohesive design to the project.
Trellis OK being removed from the back, but not front. Wants the front trellis back to soften the
front, dress it up a bit.
Privacy issue in the front is only in the entry area.
The granite in the front cheapens the whole thing.
Planter next to garage puzzling, does not fit.
One of the porch lights does not line up.
The planter has marble on the front and stone on the side.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
18
Numerous changes have been made. Can let side and back go, but front not OK. Columns are
spindly, stone, door, trellis, material change.
Details around column matter. It’s the trim too. Not just fatter.
Now just flat as well as skinny.
Liked stone going around the way.
W ant the front elevation to revert back, except allow stone to go to sill line.
Want to revert back to the original, or work with what’s there to come back as a revision. (Meyer:
Planters could fit into design. Plants would be planted, would overhang. Other houses do not have
trellises.) Other houses do not have such wide expanse above garage.
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Changes to the side and back OK, but not the changes to the front.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:18 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 60 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SCOPING,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION
USE AND A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY. (ANNE & HORACIO
MATTA, APPLICANTS; SWATT MIERS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; RILCO-EDWARDS, LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented
the project description.
Questions of staff:
None
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
John Ward, Burlingame, represented the applicant.
Introduced the applicants, Anne and Horacio Mattas. Architect George Miers and traffic engineer
Brian Jackson from Hexagon also in attendance.
Horacio Matta, applicant, provide an overview:
It’s been a long process to get to this point, looking at different sites. The Mattas grew up playing
tennis, and make a living playing tennis. Has seen benefits of introducing tennis for the kids. Has
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
19
tried to get kids from risk areas to get tennis into their lives. Feels he can give back and help kids
through tennis. The project will provide a public facility to play tennis year round.
George Miers spoke as the architect:
Program was not to do what John McEnroe did. Wants to create a facility that would feel good to be
in, to enjoy tennis.
Develop a facility with six courts. Each court requires 6,800 sq ft, so nearly one acre for six courts.
This is two-thirds of the building area. Would have liked an additional court but could not fit.
PG&E transmission wires, fire department turn-arounds, is why footprint is the way it is.
Fabric cladding with other materials to give a human scale. Felt the fabric clad space was more
appropriate along the freeway and sides, but wanted to have other materials on the front of the
building. The front has a wood-like material but more durable, also light cement plaster and lots of
glass.
Height limit is 55’, needs 33’ clear for tennis. Has been looking at two different truss structures;
looking for some flexibility on which to choose. Both would be 55 feet or less.
Vehicle drop off is located far to the back. Felt it should not be right at the front.
Commission questions:
Familiar with Bay Badminton facility? Has more street frontage parking than Edwards Court. Thinks
parking proposed for the project is adequate for day to day but concerned about tournaments.
(Miers: Coming up with a plan to handle parking during tournaments.)
On two truss designs, would it appreciably effect outside design? (Miers: No, won’t see much of the
truss system except from above. It’s a bow truss, the same on both.)
Natural ventilation? (Miers: Main tennis area would be naturally ventilated, with fans. Very energy
efficient. Louvers on the side elevations would draw the air out.)
Likes material palette.
Because entry is further back needs something like an entry canopy to draw in. Needs a bit more
celebration. (Miers: Could be a solution to that. However there are limitations with encroachments
in the PG&E easement. The front of the building is right at the 140’ transmission line.)
Maybe can use something else to designate entry, such as color.
Great for teens, can give them something to do.
Concern with tournaments. Wants to make sure weekend and evening use does not conflict with
other uses in the area. Wants to see it analyzed together with weekend users of SPCA.
Where do spectators go? (Miers: It’s not set up to have a stadium feeling. There are catwalks
alongside the courts; can also see through glass walls on ground floor.)
Wants to know where seating for spectators might be.
Potential noise from exhaust fans is considered in the environmental review.
Like project, looking forward to moving in.
At Easton Creek, would like to see an outside pedestrian area. Maybe it’s not a trail but a sitting
area. Doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to do something. Perhaps something out by the fire
truck turnaround. Does not need to be a trail but something that could be tied into at a future date.
If a creek amenity is not developed it will end up being a place where nobody goes. It will fill with
trash. Should give it a more developed space.
As it is now it does not make much sense to have a trail, but in the future could be nice to create a
path.
Is the café open to public? (Ward: Yes, it would be open to public but not advertised.)
The statement that the building is making, wants it to be recognized as a tennis center. Concerns
that it looks like an office building. Something to make it announce itself more as a tennis center.
Concern about roof how it would look like from the hills. How would it look at night?
Concern about having enough parking – still has over 20,000 sq ft of other space besides tennis
courts. Sees parking filling up quickly, which would push people out to park on Rollins Road.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
20
Calculates that if there were three spaces per court and city ratios for the remaining space, there
would need to be 83 spaces. Concerned that there is not nearly enough parking.
Brian Jackson from Hexagon spoke about the parking analysis:
Attempted to find comparable tennis facilities. Used Bay Badminton as an example, counted for trip
generation and also parking.
16 courts at Bay Badminton, looked at two different times on Saturday and once on weekend. No
more than 54 parked including street spaces. Looked at typical peak period. Based on that rate
proposed would take 21 spaces, but then there are ancillary uses and overlaps. So took the trip
generation for courts, then doubled the number to account for everything else. At peak period this
would require 36 spaces, assuming 1.5 people per vehicle and staff driving their own. This works
out to 6.3 spaces per court, which is a high ratio.
Did not look at tournament, but has staggered game times. With tournaments there are generally
more people watching but also more people per vehicle. Assumed there would be up to 52 people
there at peak during tournament.
Commission questions and comments:
Could there be an option for valet parking? Is there room for more parking spaces, such as along
the fire lanes? (Miers: The space is tight along the fire lanes and they need to remain clear. Most of
the 20,000 square feet that is not courts is not used for a lot of congregating. Only about 5,000
square feet of that area would really be used for congregating.)
Maybe land bank some of the landscaped area to allow additional stalls in the future if needed.
(Miers: Yes, but much of the side setback areas are bioswales.)
The Creek does not seem safe. Would not want kids to be playing near the creek. (Ward: This
project has surfaced the creek trail policy. Would encourage the Planning Commission to take a
look at the policy. One of the neighbors has razor wire on top of his fence because of intruder
issues. The biologist report submitted with the application says that there would be issues with the
natural habitat by adding a trail at this location. Not sure if the policy was tested before.)
Public comments:
None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
There was no need for a motion regarding this item, as the item will automatically be placed on the Regular
Action calendar when the applicant has modified the project as suggested and the environmental analysis is
complete. This item concluded at 11:17 p.m.
11. 1301 DRAKE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW AND A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAVID WAITE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
David Waite represented the applicant.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
21
Original plan was to just remodel house, but none of the remodeled plans were working.
There is no back yard in the current configuration.
Needing variance for front.
Staying with Spanish style house.
Commission comments:
Had a similar application before the Commission with a corner lot. Cannot accept “corner lot” as an
exceptional situation. But has a short block with one house having a very deep setback, more than
40 feet, and it is influencing this house. This is an oddball block with regards to front setbacks.
The angled nature of the lot also makes getting 24’-3” feet more difficult.
Doing everything they can to have a regular house with a regular yard and meet the standards.
Porch is minimal but has a large patio space right in front of it.
Massing is handled nicely.
Success is going to be in the details.
Landscaping will be important.
Front elevation looks good. On rear elevation windows on first floor are different heights. Would
like doors to line up on the right side elevation. Left side elevation will be prominent, would like to
look at lining up the windows.
Could design house to follow setback line on Easton.
What is decided here could impact house next door.
Corner lots involve the character of both frontages.
Could line up on the corner lot and have an entry on the corner.
Design house as a parallelogram – design house to follow the setbacks.
Would like to know that the other options have been explored.
Easton houses are typically set further back.
Public comments:
None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Pushing garage back will make it feel more spacious. It’s an improvement.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on Regular Action when plans have been
revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:37 p.m.
12. 82 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DW ELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DAVID
HECHT, TANNERHECHT ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NORA AND BILL HICKEY, PROPERTY
OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
22
Reference staff report dated May 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description.
Questions about garage door
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
David Hecht represented the applicant:
Reason for the renovation is that the house is dark on the inside. Trying to bring more light into
interior, and have a more collective family space at the rear.
Three garage doors now, trying to regularize. Match up the fenestration at the front of the house.
Commission comments:
On the proposed south elevation, is the window really that tall? (Hecht: Reason for the 10’-6” plate
height is to allow for more light and can put windows higher up. Has a minimum 8” parapet.)
How will the glass canopies be supported? (Hecht: Steel frames bolted into the wood.)
Which windows are operable? (Hecht: Some are operable, some are not. The operable ones can
be seen on the plan with extra frames.)
Addition has a different massing that’s pushed to the back. OK with that.
Does not understand the front porch. Why remove it? (Hecht: Wants to gain more natural light at
the front of the house. Also allows to stay within FAR.) Feels that the front porch element was just
cut off and not quite getting it. Goes from shaded, to stark and harsh.
Not sure how the roof is tying in.
What does the front canopy do? (Hecht: Simple profile for weather protection.)
Something other than the monolithic front porch. Could the landing get smaller so that the patio
could become a larger gathering space?
Far right garage door is more shed door style – drawn incorrectly. Might be nice to tie the front door
into the garage doors in shaker style with glazed portion.
Would help to have more detail on the plans.
Windows added on front seem off balance.
Mentions three existing trees but only sees two on landscape plan. Needs clarification.
Should show detail of how parapet is meeting the eave in the back.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
Not enough going on in the front to send to a design consultant.
Needs additional detail and clarification on the front.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 13, 2013
23
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:56 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 6 , 2013:
None
- FYI: 819 Walnut Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review
Project.
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 11:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary