HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.03.24
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
March 24, 2014 - 7:00 p.m.
1
STUDY SESSION – 6:00 p.m. – Conference Room A
1. Discussion of Issues to be Addressed by the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Committee to
Review and Propose Amendments to the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook.
Public Comment:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue:
Guidelines have been useful but have been exploited.
Need to look at FAR, but that's another discussion, look at mass and bulk and how it has gotten out
of hand, particularly with basement exemptions, look at declining height envelope definitions and
tighten up.
Story poles should be considered in the flat lands because houses are bigger.
For neighborhood consistency are we talking about the block or a wider area?
Need to define what is modern and make sure it fits in with block and lot size.
Chair Sargent opened the discussion, noting that the Mayor had given good direction on the
direction and purpose of the subcommittee, would like to hear commission discussion on modern
architecture, where is it appropriate, and how to reflect in the design guidelines.
Commission discussion:
What is definition of "modern architecture", defined as simplification of form and absence of
decoration.
Need clarification of terms and elimination of uncertainty.
In looking at the issue of history, modern styles are embedded in history, came into play at the turn
of the last century.
There are some streets and blocks that are nearly storybook with "traditional" style, difficulty in telling
property owners that they cannot have a house that is not that style, how do you draw the line,
where do you stop?
Have generally regulated form – mass, bulk and height, interpretation of design guidelines difficult,
how do you define style and draw lines on map, neighbors may petition that they don't want to be on
the map, getting into issues of taste and style rather than form.
It's been stated that modern wasn't considered when the design guidelines were formulated, just
because it wasn't considered doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.
Modern is more successful where landscape is more organic, in areas where landscaping is more
manicured/linear, traditional architecture is better.
Distinction is in the roof style, there is a 30 foot height limit to allow for pitch variation, if flat roof,
should have a lower limit, can be measured to midpoint of roof angle, with guidelines can adjust
criteria to make mass and bulk more acceptable.
Modern style isn't addressed in design guidelines, need to develop new guidelines for modern, may
need new guidelines to address mass, don't want to become formulaic.
Design guidelines need to be bolstered, need to reference design guidelines more often when
commenting on projects.
Concern with some designers who do the same house design over and over.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
2
Should be a discussion of floor area ratio (FAR) and the detached garage exemption, can have a
one-car attached garage that is deemphasized and fits in.
How do you define a neighborhood, there are houses built more recently that are modern, are they
now considered part of the neighborhood.
In the design guidelines, looks at "outliers", those that are out of character with block, in terms of
mass and bulk.
Guidelines should not be written as narrowly interpreted restrictive document, but should provide
clarity for residents.
Agree with what's been said, see challenge of defining neighborhoods, but if a neighborhood is
designated as historic, the owners need to buy in and agree.
Guidelines provide a great structure, but don't talk enough about materiality and elements of style.
Should define the elements of modernism and other styles, what elements we are looking for and
give images, examples, provides an opportunity to make applicants think more clearly what style
they are choosing.
Suggest that whatever style an applicant wants to have, we provide general guidelines for that style.
Maybe projects should be referred to a design review consultant more often, enable the consultants
to have tools to review a modern style, have to give direction and guidance to design review
consultants.
Don't think modern design should be excluded, but design guidelines need more clarity on this
issue, look at different standards for mass, bulk and height.
May be getting push back from homeowners because they want what they want, sometimes seems
there have been instances where allowances have been made.
Could be using design review consultants more often, but they have to be given guidance and
clarity.
The study session adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sargent called the March 24, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and Project Manager Maureen Brooks; City Attorney Kathleen
Kane; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the February 24,
2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 5, Commission comments, eighth bullet, typo, change “curve” to “curb”.
Page 12, second bullet, starting with “Dunlap…” should read “Dunlap – the new windows will match
existing, will have a window sill with a small apron.”
Page 14, first paragraph, second sentence, eliminate “and exchanged e-mails”.
Page 15, fifth bullet from bottom of page, should read “Parking spaces will be below grade. No one
could imagine that anyone can hear it because of transition of height at rear.”
Page 24, Item 8, paragraph one, change “DATE” to “February 24, 2014”.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
3
Page 24, second bullet from bottom of page, change “are valid” to “support the material choices,
however most of the examples provided would not meet current design review standards.”
Page 24, last bullet, change sentence to “Unified windows and divided lites give the house identity.”
Page 30, voice vote on the motion to deny 960 David Road should be 3-2-0-1, with Commissioners
Bandrapalli and Yie dissenting and Commissioner Terrones absent.
Page 32, Item 12, third bullet from bottom, Commissioner Sargent’s comments need to be added:
“As far as views into neighbor's property, the small deck on the right side outside the master
bedroom, it looks to me that it looks directly into the neighbor's property, that would be a concern
that needs to be addressed with the neighbor at 1520 Los Montes Drive. As far as the deck
downhill, feel that if it were enclosed, it wouldn't change the issue at all.”
Page 33, Item 12, second bullet, Commissioner DeMartini’s comments need to be added:
“Surprised we're having a discussion on what constitutes too big of a deck when we just
approved a deck that's close to this size on a hill, I hope we're consistent; don't have a problem
with requiring story poles, don't necessarily have a problem with the deck, but need to see what
the impact would be; concern with glass to rear at left, if it is something like glass looking into
neighbor's yard, could address screening there and perhaps for neighbors on Alturas Drive, it's
not the size of the deck but the impact on neighbors.”
Page 35, Item 15, second bullet, add “Inherited plans,” at beginning of sentence.
Page 38, last line, Bandrapalli is misspelled.
Motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones abstaining).
Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the March
10, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission with the following changes:
Page 2, paragraph under Item 1a, replace “1220 Bernal Avenue” with “1448 Laguna Avenue”.
Page 2, paragraph under Item 1b, replace “1220 Bernal Avenue” with “1349 Bernal Avenue”.
Page 12, last paragraph under Item 5, replace "Consent Calendar" with “Regular Action Calendar”
and remove "Appeal procedures were advised".
Page 13, third paragraph from bottom, remove "Appeal procedures were advised."
Page 14, second paragraph from bottom, remove "Appeal procedures were advised."
Motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie abstaining).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
There was no comment from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2532 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Side Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction
Permit for a single-story addition (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect and applicant; Roy and Cecilia
Parker, property owners) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All commissioners visited the site. Chair Sargent and Commissioner DeMartini noted that they had visited
the adjacent property at 2538 Hayward Drive and viewed the subject property from the neighbor's living
room.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
4
Commission comments:
• Ask applicant if he has discussed the project with neighbor at 2538 Hayward Drive, what was the
feedback?
• Great project for story poles, visited the house next door, there seems to be some issues with
distant views; think there are two issues regarding views from the neighbor's house, they have bay
views in two different directions, so it is important to install story poles.
• Would like to hear more reasons we should make findings for variance, may want to consider
proposing an alternative.
• Don’t have a problem with request to go into side setback, seem to be continuing an existing
condition and there is logic for that, if it shifts in it will be unnatural.
• In other cases where we've seen continuation of a nonconforming setback, it is on a smaller lot
where there are fewer options, there are other layouts that could be used in this case without
requesting a variance.
• Generally accepting argument for variance, but there may be a view issue, need to see story poles.
• Applicant has looked at the most strategic way to expand, understand the logic of the extension;
looking at working with the existing condition without bearing unreasonable expense.
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m.
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 indicated that he would recuse himself from Agenda Item No. 2b (1425 Cabrillo Avenue) as
he lives within 500 feet of the property. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from
Agenda Item 2a (2000 Carmelita Avenue) as she lives within 500 feet of the property. Commission
requested that Item 2b (1425 Cabrillo Avenue) be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. This
item was moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda.
2a. 2000 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE,
DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; BRADLEY AND JULIE WILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF
CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Sargent moved approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report,
Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Sargent called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie recusing). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
Chair Sargent left the Council Chambers.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
5
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2b. 1425 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO
CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO A WORKOUT ROOM
WITH A FULL BATHROOM (MEGAN WARREN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AMY LOU AND ANDREW
WOODS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated March 24, 2014 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Megan Warren, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
Had a question on the south windows, trees adjacent to accessory structure provide screening, if
trees were removed, there would be issues with visibility between neighbors.
Could use window treatments for privacy, might not be a concern for storage, but for a workout
room, could consider frosting the glass.
How many bedrooms are in the house? (Megan Warren - house has three bedrooms)
Would this qualify for a potential secondary unit? (Hurin – No, secondary ordinance does not allow
second unit in accessory structures to be added on the second floor.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Don't want the windows taken out, but would suggest frosted glass to address privacy. Blinds would
help for light pollution. Can also can replant or add plantings.
Would like them to consider frosted glass so there won’t be an issue in the future.
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 and date
stamped December 18, 2012, sheets A.1 through A.5;
2. that if the windows do not match the existing windows, then the selected windows shall be reviewed
by the Planning Commission prior to installation via an FYI;
3. that the window glazing for the windows along the south wall shall be frosted;
4. that the accessory living quarters above the detached garage shall only include a workout room and
a bathroom; any changes to the use of the accessory living quarters shall require an amendment to
the conditional use permit;
5. that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen with a permanent cooking fixture, as this
would change the use of the accessory structure to a second dwelling unit, and the accessory
structure shall never be used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
6
6. that if the accessory structure is demolished, the envelope changed at a later date, or should the
use in the structure change, the conditional use permit may require an amendment or may become
void;
7. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s September 6, 2012, memo, Chief Building Official's
December 20, 2012, November 13, 2012, and August 26, 2012, memos, and the Stormwater
Coordinator's August 28, 2012, memo shall be met;
8. 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;
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; and
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Chair Sargent
recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m.
Chair Sargent returned to the dais. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from
Agenda Item No. 3 (1576 Cypress Avenue) as he has a potential business relationship with the applicant.
Commissioner Davis indicated that she would recuse herself because she lives within 500 feet of the
property. Commissioners Terrones and Davis left the chambers.
3. 1576 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE LENGTH AND REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE TO
REPLACE AN EXISTING TWO-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH A DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE
(PETER COMAROTO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ENERTIA DESIGNS, DESIGNER) STAFF
CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 10, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING)
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated March 24, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Peter Comaroto, property owner, 1576 Cypress Avenue, represented the application.
Commission comments/questions:
The purpose of the space is storage, why are so many doors proposed on the outside. Appears the
space might be used for things other than storage; other uses might be permissible, but would
require additional permits.
Asking for conditional use permit for larger accessory structure, part of that depends on what the
purpose of the structure is for, if used for recreation or second offices would require additional
approval. (Comaroto - Originally was a simple design, gave it to architect, looked at surrounding
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
7
homes, design is a replica of home behind, has dormers, trying to match what is existing on house.
Use of the accessory structure is for electric car plugin and storage.)
On Section B-B of new garage, shouldn’t the door be on the right not left, or car flipped around?
(Comaroto - Yes, it is not correct, should be reversed.)
Nice looking design, good use of space, makes it look less utilitarian. (Comaroto - Because of pie
shaped lot, area is constricted long garage makes better use of the space.)
Doesn’t look like there is an issue with parking on street in this neighborhood.
Have you presented plans to neighbors? (Comaroto – Yes, have shared it with them.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Have a little concern with use, if it gets used as something other than storage will be incumbent on
neighbors to complain.
Concern with why it’s so big, but understand use of space, understand if other use is proposed will
have to come back. Issues are mitigated in design, think the unusual shape of the property is a
special circumstance, but there will be eyes on the applicant if back space were used for something
else.
Any garage can be used as storage – but the large doors that open out makes it conducive for other
uses like outdoor entertainment space.
Commissioner Yie 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
March 3, 2014, sheets A-1 and A-2, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory
structure shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and shall not be used for accessory living or
sleeping purposes;
3. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special
Permits 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;
5. 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
6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-0.
(Commissioners Terrones and Davis recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:46 p.m. Commissioners Terrones and Davis returned to the dais.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
8
4. 1477 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, WEHMEYER DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EVAN AND
CAREN WEINSHEL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report
dated March 24, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant.
Had talked about including a trellis at the rear of the house in the preliminary design, took it off
because wanted more yard space and light; wanted to limit the roof line in the back, idea is to keep
the yard space for children. Came up with trellis directly over the French doors for the outdoor
entertaining space.
Commission comments:
Noted that office not counted as bedroom because it is more than 50% open, doesn’t count as
bedroom, was the opening measured to the built-ins? Should be a five foot opening, looks like four
feet. (Wehmeyer - Can widen the opening to the office so that it is 50% of the length of the wall.)
Curious how the fence and gate to the garage will be placed. (Wehmeyer – It will be gated so can
pull into the second space.)
Is there a railing at the front door? (Wehmeyer - Yes, kept original columns with guardrail around
the porch.)
Satisfied with the trellis, it was too plain before.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Can support the project, concerned with applicant submitting petitions from neighbors, makes me
uncomfortable, not the only part of the application; concerned that it's becoming a popularity contest.
Encourage sharing proposed project with immediate neighbors, but canvassing whole block doesn’t
necessarily add anything, just because there are letters doesn’t mean there might be design issues.
Concur, important for neighbors to share their designs, but there are no guarantees. Appreciate
applicants going to neighbors, most of the time they just get postcard and small drawing on lawn,
important neighbors know what’s going on.
Commissioner Davis 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
March 13, 2014, sheets A2.0, A2.1 and A3.0 through A3.3 and L2.0 and dated stamped February
26, 2014, sheets A0.0, A0.1, A1.0, A1.1, A2.2 and A3.4;
2. that the opening to the office be widened to be greater than 50 per cent of the width of the wall;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
9
3. 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);
4. 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;
5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s February 27, 2014, February 12, 2014 and December
17, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s February 13, 2014 and December 23, 2013 memos, the
Engineering Division’s December 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 18, 2013 memo
and the Stormwater Division’s December 23, 2013 memo shall be met;
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 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;
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;
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,
2013 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. 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;
13. 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
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
10
14. 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.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
5. 1528 HOOVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(JESSE GEURSE, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; JAMES HAGGARTY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report
dated March 24, 2014, with attachments. Project Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, GCD, Inc., and Jaqueline Haggarty, property owner represented the application.
Commission comments/questions:
On Sheet A5, right side elevation, you did some work on the slope of the chimney, it is more
graceful. On left side of the chimney, would you want to take the line of the chimney and move it
over so it aligns with the edge of the chimney above at second floor level? The corbels could also
move over and be evenly spaced under the window enclosure, and chimney would have its support.
(Geurse - Agree that change can be made.)
Like the changes on the front elevation, rearranging the stone base, is the handrail just on one side?
(Geurse - Yes, could add one on other side.)
Sheet A5 and A6 are both labeled right side elevations, A5 should be labeled as the left side
elevation.
Regarding the window in the dining room, not many walls in dining room because it is all open, could
you make it a bay window with hutch? If made that into bay, elevation is flat, would give it some
dimension and add utility. (Geurse - Really tight on floor area, it is an existing wall and want to keep
the line of that wall.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones 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
February 10, 2014, sheets T.0, GB.1, GB.2, BMP.1, LS.1, DM.1, DM.2, A.2, A.3, A.6 and
Topographic and Boundary Survey, and date stamped March 12, 2014, sheets SP.1, A.1, A.4, A.5,
A.7;
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);
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
11
3. that on the right side elevation, the left hand edge of the chimney shall be shifted to the left so that it
aligns with the edge of the chimney above the roof;
4. 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;
5. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s December 4, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's
November 8, 2013, January 28 and February 14, 2014 memos, the Parks Supervisor’s November
15, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 12, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's
November 13, 2013 memo shall be met;
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 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;
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;
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,
2013 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;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
12
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 Bandrapalli.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
6. 1809 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN FRONT
OF THE MAIN DWELLING (NADINE STOCKLIN & JONAH VAN ZANDT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JOHANN STOCKLIN, DESIGNER) (40 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER
All commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Davis had an ex parte communication with the
applicants and spoke with them to encourage them to work the issues out with neighbor. Reference staff
report dated March 24, 2014, with attachments. Project Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Nadine Stocklin & Jonah Van Zandt, property owners, represented the application.
Looked at the written statement from the neighbors, didn’t include shrubs, fine with fence, but is a
six foot fence allowed in front yard? (Brooks – W ould be limited to five foot high within the front
setback.)
Okay with undergrounding the electrical conduit.
Neighbor has requested that brick landscaping be removed. Brick provides separation, also when
the neighbor put in a new driveway, it is a little higher, might be a runoff issue without the brick,
would like to leave some of the brick along the property line.
Would like clear direction for landscaped screening, willing to be reasonable and flexible, want clear
instructions.
What is meant by overlapping panels for the fence? (Commissioners: Panels overlap so there are
no gaps and panels alternate between the two sides so there is no bad side to the fence.)
Commission comments:
There is a pattern in the neighborhood where the house lines up, the line is being disrupted with the
garage, similar situation two doors down, in that case fence was brought to end of garage and the
rest in front is landscaping, provides great screening. Should have fence from face of garage door
and extend it perpendicular to end it where garage is, neighbor asking for 30 feet, think it is too far.
Don’t see a problem extending it closer and continuing fence closer to the front.
On the sketch, it shows the extension of the fence to a point that is at the front corner of garage, but
doesn’t return to garage, would like to see it return to garage.
In order to properly landscape, the brick should come out, erosion control can be addressed either
with fence or could be a planter edge to act as transition.
The concern with having the brick next to the driveway is that it would be possible for someone to
park in the apron along the side.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
13
Public comments:
Anil Lal, 1813 Ashton Avenue:
There is quite a bit of common ground on mitigation.
Five foot tall fence in front yard is fine, there is a good distance between, but if fence stops at
garage, will still see beyond, will look a lot better. Believe the difference in grade is just a few
inches, can be resolved, if you put 2x12 can prevent soil erosion.
If the brick apron is maintained, on right edge of proposed garage, people will park cars, will be very
wide driveway.
Commission comments:
Driveway is wider than the garage, what the applicant is suggesting would be to have only a
driveway to garage, then planting, then keeping a strip of brick along property line, there would not
be enough room to park.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Comfortable with what applicant has provided, prefer screening be done with landscaping, think 25
feet is fine for fence.
W ould be nice to get rid of brick and have lush landscaping, with different heights of landscaping. I
think there might be better ways to retain soil that would look more attractive, don’t need to keep
brick, ending fence at garage makes logical sense.
There is concurrence on undergounding the electrical.
Don’t see why you need to extend fence into front setback, don’t see why should screen beyond
what is being added, it is not the neighborhood pattern to have fence extend.
Make sure that the width of the driveway just services the garage and does not allow for parking in
side yard, could be a raised planter.
Would like to see a landscape plan to see the planting design, and have it be something that the
neighbor reviews. Should be a refinement of points, needs to come back with revised landscape
plan.
Agree fence can stop at edge of garage, don’t see why it needs to extend into front setback. Fence
could have an additional one foot lattice.
Think that these suggestions need to be articulated in plans, would be acceptable to have a strip of
brick or just landscaping.
Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the application and have the applicant come back with revised
plans that have been circulated to the neighbor, that call out an underground conduit for electricity, that the
driveway is reshaped to just the width of the garage, and service the garage solely, that the fence would
stop at the garage level but that there be a landscaping plan submitted that addresses the question of
screening in the front setback area between the two properties, and should provide sufficient detail that it is
clear that the area between the revised driveway and the brick, if it is retained, cannot be used for parking.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion
to continue. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
14
7. 4 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,
TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ,
FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTOPHER AWOYINKA AND SUZANNE MCGOVERN,
PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Terrones indicated he would recuse himself from the discussion because he has a quasi-
business relationship with a neighboring property owner. Chair Sargent indicated he would recuse himself
from the discussion for a non-statutory reason. Chair Sargent and Commissioner Terrones left the
chambers. All remaining Commissioners visited the site. Commissioners Yie, DeMartini and Davis had
communications with the applicant and with neighbors. Reference staff report dated March 24, 2014, with
attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-eight
conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission questions of staff:
Did the story poles reflect the 2-foot shift as shown on the revised plan? (Hurin - It is our
understanding that the story poles were installed based on the story pole plan, which was prepared
before the two-foot shift was made in the revised plans.)
What would the effective lot size be if the private road and parking were not included? (Hurin - Can
provide the lot size before the lot line adjustment, that size was 12,763 SF, the maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for that lot size would be 5,184 square feet.)
Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, project designer, represented the applicant.
Provided samples of the materials to be used on site.
Applicant has been reviewing plans with adjacent neighbors, owners have done a lot to change
plans based on discussions.
Looking at the pictures from across the canyon provided by neighbors, does show that there is no
house there now, and that there will now be a house, can see that houses will come out of the trees,
have done as much as we can, is not a sheer descent.
Commissioner comments/questions:
Clarify, story poles, are they an accurate depiction of the plans? (Raduenz - they are accurate, but
did not include the more recent two-foot shift, will move the story poles, but want to get direction
first.)
Designer noted that they are considering revising plans to ask for a variance to push the house
forward within the required front setback. Setback is tight. If we push the whole structure forward
four feet, would maintain views for 2 La Mesa Court.
Would this require a variance for the front left corner? If just pulled the kitchen back, might not
require variance; would help with views from canyon. (Hurin – Yes, pushing the house forward would
require a front setback variance.)
The shifting of two feet is in plans before us? (Raduenz – Yes.)
Is it necessary to take out tree No. 21 with the two-foot shift? (Raduenz – Plan can be reworked to
keep that tree.)
The red fescue planted around tree, will that be irrigated? (Raduenz – Fescue doesn’t need much
irrigation.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
15
Roof plan shows curb around the entire house; building elevations show a 4-inch curb plus 16-inch
roof framing, it looks a lot thinner. (Raduenz - Yes, it is a narrow curb; section on sheet A4.0 shows
thirty inches, one-half of that would be 15 inches, they will be thicker.)
Show drainage on the roof to make sure it works.
Concerned that the story poles are not completely accurate, looks like one piece angles and is
attached to tree? (Raduenz – Yes, couldn’t get it around the tree, but it's not the highest point.)
Concern is that these are plans to build 5000 SF house, but you weren't able to install story poles
accurately. Should be able to put up story poles without harming tree, don't think it shows the scope
of the project.
Looked like there was recent pruning of oak trees – was that done with a permit? (Raduenz - Don’t
think anything was trimmed, owners can verify.)
At last meeting, concern was removal of three oak trees for pool and deck, doesn’t look like that was
changed. (Raduenz – The pool would be in the shade if it was centered to house, option to get rid of
pool if helps the project get approved. Have explored options, but this is best place for a pool. If it’s
not realistic to have pool, will take advice.)
Can the pool be placed perpendicular to the house? (Raduenz – We tried that, but it would have to
be farther out of the ground, and the owners don’t want the pool to be that far below the main floor.)
There are three trees close to the proposed house, and the arborist is concerned with approving
houses too close to existing trees. (Raduenz – will revise plans if given guidance.)
Have designed a cool looking house, but this is a canyon with a lot of trees that a lot of people like to
look at; cutting down a fair amount of trees, need to consider other options.)
Concern with the size of the replacement trees being provided. (Raduenz – Can provide new trees
that are 12-14 feet tall at the time they are planted.)
Concern with plan having ten trees in a line between your house and neighbors, should be flexibility
as to where trees go.
Concern with story poles and not moving them over, need to be able to see what the impacts are on
neighbors on both sides.
Mike Callan, landscape architect:
A lot of the existing trees are in bad shape, it is a liability to keep them.
Would have drip system for the fescue so it won’t have overhead spray onto trees or get
overwatered.
Concerned about retaining the three trees by the pool, the arborist's report says they are significantly
impacted, love oak trees, trying to supplement with planting new oaks and deer resistant and
drought tolerant plants.
Will try to keep tree No. 21, should help with views, will block views to the neighbor's private patio
area below.
Trying to keep it as native as possible in the lower area. Can shape trees used along property so
can maintain privacy between homes.
Further Commissioner comments/questions:
Regarding oak trees to remain, if fescue is planted around the trees, and you add extra water with
oaks near the creek, would the watering of the fescue impact the trees? (Callan – If it was a flat lot
with standing water, there might be an issue, but this is sloping lot, won't get standing water.)
Understand that Sudden Oak Death is related to organisms that breed in Bay Laurel trees. (Callan
– The type of Laurel that is proposed is not hosting the Sudden Oak Death.)
Is the plate height on first floor thirteen feet? (Raduenz – It is ten feet, but the plate height in the
kitchen area is 13 feet.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
16
To address the concerns regarding 2 La Mesa Court, is it possible to shift just the top level, because
that’s the corner they see? That story would get stepped back more? (Raduenz – Yes, could shift
forward, but there would be larger decks in the rear on the upper floors.)
Not in favor of encroaching on the setback, but wondering if you shifted it forward, could just do the
first level so it wouldn't encroach as much into the canyon. (Raduenz – Would be difficult without
encroaching into front setback, could shift the garage and kitchen, but everything else is pretty much
at the front setback line.)
Regarding the materials, the colors seem stark, that much light colored stucco in the color palette
might be too stark in the landscaping. Maybe just a little darker shade, perhaps closer to the stone
color to blend more. Consider using a color that blends more, with the lower half in a different tone.
(Raduenz - Could do darker colors, don’t want to paint the whole thing brown.)
Have you considered using more wood for exterior siding? (Raduenz - Maintenance is an issue;
could explore, didn’t want a clad wood box.)
Mock ups from neighbors are accurate, do think there is a lot of glazing, could be an issue with light
pollution, the whole back is mostly glass. (Raduenz – The bottom floor would be covered by existing
trees, the middle floor is a sleeping floor, and the upper floor is living area.
All properties are looking towards the view, away from the house. (Raduenz - All of the neighboring
houses are out of tree line, have patio doors and large decks. These windows are looking towards
the view, not towards La Mesa Lane.)
Suzanne McGovern & Chris Awoyinka, property owners:
Love the lot and view, wanted to build a modern, most appropriate for this lot.
Relied on experts regarding engineering and have done everything we can to satisfy the neighbors.
Don’t know what else we can do, feel for neighbors on other side because we are trying to please
the other neighbors.
Feel that the project is within code, done by the book, almost impossible to satisfy everyone. A fair
view is what is needed.
Everyone wants to preserve the trees, but these trees are dying.
Property doesn’t get afternoon sun in the back, that’s why we chose the location of pool.
Neighbors didn’t like the skylights, got rid of the larger skylights, but wanted some light into the
kitchen.
Have taken into consideration views of neighbors, and what can be done to mitigate. Neighbors at 6
La Mesa Court do have a large setback, the story poles give an illustration of what it would like,
gives outlines, height width and the elevations be at the back.
Public comments:
Mark Intrieri, 2 La Mesa Court:
Have been supportive of the project, although now may be more impacted. As process has
proceeded, the house is moving closer to our property line, impacting vitality of oak trees they were
trying to preserve and impacting our views, there is a reasonable solution, happy if move over a few
feet and move closer to street. Would like to see final story poles, but think that these items would
solve our concerns.
Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane:
Have a situation in which one person's dream is another’s nightmare, this is what we will be looking
at from our living room and front bedroom, jutting out into Mills Canyon further than any of the other
structures that abuts Mills Canyon.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
17
Even if story poles were accurate, in looking at story poles see big square façade jutting out into
canyon, should be more in conformity with the neighborhood, and not impact our view.
If this impairs our view, will also impair view of anyone we want to sell our house to, looking at
financial loss if the house built as designed.
Broader community will be impacted from vistas on the Ed Taylor trail.
Also concerned with all the glass, think it will reflect morning sunlight into our house. Their house
should be of design materials and fenestration that conforms with the balance of the neighborhood.
Story poles were visible above trees, a big square mass sitting above.
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane:
Trying to convey through pictures that the impacts of light are greater. Resident at 1512 La Mesa
Lane mentioned scope of project doesn’t fit in to houses around it. Looking at the square footage of
the proposed house, went around collected square footages of houses in the neighborhood near La
Mesa Court and La Mesa Lane, see that all of them are in high 1000s to mid-2000s square footage.
Most of the houses are 3 - 4 bedrooms and 2- 3 bathrooms. This is much larger, doesn’t seem to fit
in to the sizes in the neighborhood.
Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court:
Look forward to additional conversations so all concerns can be adequately addressed. Would like
to have time to review any revised plans.
Concerned with the proposed elevated back yard, a terrace in excess of 1200 SF. Pool deck is
significantly elevated on a platform overlooking our back yard. This is a cliff overlook back yard
design would not be allowed on level lots and we don't encourage it here.
The revised plans move the house closer to our structure, there was an attempt to move house over
two feet to protect two trees on the side, but this would result in removal of trees near our house.
Blocks sunlight, diminishes privacy and increases light pollution.
Look forward to having the process continued and concerns addressed.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
There was another project with a severe down sloping lot, neighbors complained that it looked like
three story building, required that project was stepped back and others were required to follow the
contours of land, it stepped up the lot.
Am a fan of modern design, but the mass of this project feels excessive to me, if you could step
forward top floor it would shift back the rear to give relief to the three story face, resolve the issues
from 2 La Mesa Court and soften the design.
Think that the pool may not be a good investment anyway given the lack of sunlight, maybe just stick
with hot tub if moving it is not feasible, see that it would feel imposing to neighbors.
Have a right to develop property, if have lower level should use it, but if you could find a way to step
back the top level more so it doesn't feel so imposing on canyon.
Concur with other comments, if you can avoid cutting down trees it would be great, need to
compromise.
Appreciate that applicant is willing to plant 12-14 feet tall trees.
Trees, views as it affects neighbors and mass of house are all issues.
Regarding trees – views are impacted on 2 La Mesa Court, it is a significant view, if you can shift the
house over and keep tree No. 21, would help their view issues.
If you could pull the top story back so it feels less bulky from the side and back.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
18
How we measure height is an issue, if measured from adjacent grade, would address the issue of
mass.
No reason to eliminate the basement, you are within allowable the limits.
Fine with modern design, understand that there won't be a lot of reflection from glass, not sure is a
concern from the downhill lot, major view is of bay and airport; if the view is trees, can be mitigated
through keeping some and planting.
Story poles will need to be redone to be accurate and reflect revised design.
Would be nice to mix in a warmer neutral color to the color palette.
It would be hard to support a variance for a new house, would there be a way to shift the kitchen
back, it would really help.
Don’t think the light pollution compared to the Apple store is fair, but residents don’t have anything
else to look at – would be helpful if a rendering could be done from a view from La Mesa Lane with
the lights on and with the trees there. Maybe showing a rendering and stepping back the top, would
get better response from neighbors if you could assist them in being able to see the light impacts.
There were questions about oak trees, if there could be a note from arborist on the best way to
preserve trees.
Neighbors have been clear on which trees are most important, particularly the two next to 2 La Mesa
Court, and reworking the stairs on the opposite side to preserve tree near 6 La Mesa Court.
Asked to step back top floor, does not require that it be pushed forward to impose into the front
setback, could be compressed.
Commissioner Davis made a motion to continue the application to the April 14, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting with direction to revise the plans as noted in the discussion. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 4-0-2-0 (Chair
Sargent and Commissioner Terrones recused). The item concluded at 10:02 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 475 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,
INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; JOEL SELCHER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Chair Sargent and Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
All commissioners visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated
March 24, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There
were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Jesse Geurse, GCD Inc. represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions
On the front elevation A4, wondering if the gable vent could be replaced with a window?
Kind of like it without window, would look like three stories if it were changed to a window.
W ould it look better if chimney along right side towards the front of the house were extended to the
roof? (Geurse - Would be an issue with window, but could make it narrower, could take a look at
that.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
19
Looking at the front elevation, the upper and lower windows on the left side are about the same size,
would it make more sense to have different sizes, a hierarchy of window sizes, have the upper ones
a little bit smaller? (Geurse - Agree that it feels like the top one is heavier than bottom one.)
Trying to understanding the roof plan, is the big section between two gables, ½:12 slope, then does
it get steeper? (Geurse – Dashed line in middle is a step down, so both are in ½:12 slope.)
There are a lot of houses with same design in this area. Neighbors are going to be copying design,
want to make sure you build it exactly as it is drawn, don’t to lose details and have it diluted.
Like the rear elevation, the roof line is a nice design feature.
Design looks great – could look at the chimney extending higher, doesn’t have to meet two feet
above ridge.
On north elevation, are the doors substantially taller? (Geurse – Yes, the doors are eight foot tall,
has nine foot high plates and normal header.)
Are there hand rails on the front elevation? (Geurse – yes.)
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment:
Generally in support, with a couple changes as noted in the comments.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:12 p.m.
9. 1529 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW, TW O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (TRG
ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JOHN AND CHERIE MCGEE, PROPERTY OWNERS)
STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report dated March 24, 2014, with attachments. There were no ex-parte communications.
Project Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant.
Picked a style that thinks will fit into neighborhood, shingles soften building.
Historic review took a while so haven’t review the plans until recently, would like to add windows in
family room on driveway side.
As far as the tree in the rear, the arborist is here to answer questions. Propose to plant eight new
trees on site.
Commission comments:
Like design, think it will fit in well with neighborhood.
Wondering about the two-story element on right side of front façade, is there a different way to treat
that? This layout is something we see a lot of, would like to see something different.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 24, 2014
20
Can you make the front porch bigger? That part of town is close to downtown, would be a nice hang
out spot.
Know that parking is constricted in this area, is the driveway gate manual or automatic? Could you
push it back further it so that multiple cars could be parked in the driveway?
In looking at the front porch, if you make it bigger by extending it towards the front, would it interfere
with window? (Grange – Actually took that window out, so can pull the front porch forward and get
more seating area.)
On the right elevation, next to chimney, could you add windows on first floor on either side?
Consider taking stone up to shoulder as a bottom base to the chimney.
This neighborhood is about porches and craftsman, this design will fit in.
Could the roof line somehow include the entry to emphasize the entry a little more?
Neighborhood has a lot of original craftsman, see more horizontal siding as base rather than stone,
might work on this design to fit into neighborhood.
Have any of the neighbors seen the plans? Have seen other projects with big stairwell windows that
have caused concerns with privacy.
Seems to be consensus on ideas, porch could come out a bit.
Would there be an issue with maintenance of horizontal siding? Would be okay with stone as long
as it is a type of stone that we might see in this area.
Prefer the stone, looks more solid or substantial.
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 Chair Sargent.
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 6-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:27 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Appointment of two Planning Commissioners to serve on a joint City Council/Planning Commission
committee to review and propose amendments to the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook:
Chair Sargent noted that the Commission had a good discussion in the study session and that he had
watched Mayor’s appointments at Council meeting. Wants to act on appointments, echo what the Mayor
said regarding issues with a wide range of opinion; appointees should reflect that range; think that it is very
important that appointees work well with members of subcommittee. He then appointed Commissioners
Terrones and Chair Sargent to the Design Guidelines subcommittee.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary