HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 04.12.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, April 12, 2010 — 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Terrones called the April 12, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Vistica
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker and Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner A uran to approve the minutes of the March 22,
2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 5, Item 5; delete "appeal procedures were advised" from paragraph summarizing the vote on
the motion.
Page 6, Item 6; first bullet under "Additional Commission comments';- revise Chu's response to
read: "will not be noticeable, and there is no flat roof in this area".
Page 7, Item 6; delete "appeal procedures were advised" from paragraph summarizing the vote on
the motion.
Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent).
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.
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.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
822 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOANN M. GANN, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; TIM AND LINDA AITKEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Commissioner Auran moved approval 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
report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Terrones called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:05 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 1444 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA
RATIO VARIANCE, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (JIM AND BARBARA MILLETT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHNNY GO, NII
ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Jim Millett, 1444 Vancouver Avenue; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Liked the porch revisions.
The design changes result in a good compromise with respect to the floor area ratio Variance.
The front entryway has been nicely changed; looks better.
Public comments:
No one spoke.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Aluminum or vinyl frame windows are shown; would like wood windows.
■ Install wood trim around the windows.
■ There is justification for the Variance; the small overage is close to the area of the garage;
additionally, there is an exceptional circumstance because of the neighboring wall at property line.
■ The slope of the lot (down slopes to the south and east) make it difficult to place the garage at the
rear of the lot.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 1 Z 2010
Only half of the garage is visible from the street; and it is located approximately 40-feet back from
the curb, quite distant from the street.
Commissioner Cauchi 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 26, 2010, sheets A-1 through A-8, L1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey;
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 wood, or aluminum clad simulated true divided -light wood windows shall be installed. Window
trims shall either be wood, or fiber painted cement, not stucco covered Fiberglas or other similar
material;
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 Chief Building Official's November 6, 2009 and January 21, 2010 memos,
the City Engineer's November 18, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 9, 2009 memo, the
City Arborist's November 4, 2009 and December 22, 2009 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's
November 4, 2009 memo shall be met;
6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio
Variance and Front Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will
become void;
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;
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 1 Z 2010
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 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 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
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 Yie.
Discussion of motion:
The front door and sidelights look like they have a good muntin pattern; would like the windows to
be uniform with this element of the design.
The windows should be either wood, or aluminum clad simulated true divided light windows.
Trims shall either be wood or painted fiber cement, not stucco covered Fiberglas.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1.
(Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m.
3. 2200 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW BASEMENT
QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGR., INC.,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER: JOE AND CATHY GUGLIELMI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF
CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 12, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Joe Guglielmi, 2200 Poppy Drive; represented the applicant:
Commission comments:
Like the changes to the front entry.
E,
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 1 Z 2010
Asked if railings will be added at the front porch? (Guglielmi — there is not a requirement for a
handrail based upon the current design.)
Public comments:
No one spoke.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped March 31, 2010, sheets A.1 through A.10 and L.1;
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 11 and February 9, 2010 memos, the Fire
Marshal's February 8, 2010 and December 7, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's February 15, 2010
and December 22, 2009 memos, the City Arborist's February 10, 2010 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's February 11, 2010 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
10. 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;
11. 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
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.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
■ Odd shaped lot warrants the Variance; the driveway needs to conform to the lot shape.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-1
(Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m.
4. 1117 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR A BASEMENT AND DIRECT EXIT FROM A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JING LING LO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
LI SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Li Sheng Fu, 2920 22nd Avenue, San Francisco; represented the applicant:
■ Contacted the next door neighbors and resolved the fence matter; will construct a temporary fence
during construction.
■ Have raised the sill height of the second -story windows along the left side elevation in bedroom #2
to 5-feet, 6-inches, due to neighbor concerns with privacy.
■ Eliminated one bathroom.
■ Worked with the Design Reviewer to provide more details, made changes as suggested.
■ Will use Andersen windows with wood trim.
■ Columns were altered to be of a tapered design at the front entry.
■ Wood strips have been over the stucco at the gable ends.
■ Expanded the size of the front porch.
■ Added a 24-inch box tree within the front yard.
■ Have reduced the paved area within the rear yard.
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 1 Z 2010
Commission comments:
■ What are the front porch stair and flooring materials? (Fu — will be concrete. May be surfaced with
tile. Will provide details on the plans. The rail will be wrought -iron.)
■ The windows aren't well defined; are they simulated true divided -light windows? (Fu — will provide
this design detail.)
■ What "pervious" materials will be installed within the rear yard; provide this detail on the plans;
indicate if sand set. (Fu — will be sand set pavers.)
■ The second floor window on the left side of the front fagade appears too close to the edge; consider
making the window a bit smaller. (Fu — will reduce window size somewhat.)
■ Feels that a wood railing may be more appropriate than a wrought -iron railing, given the
architectural style of the home. (Fu — can change it to a wood design.)
■ Specify the type of surfacing to be placed on the porch floor. (Fu — will be tiled.)
■ Is the lower portion of the columns wood or stucco? (Fu — stucco.)
■ Consider bringing something across the bottom of the porch to make it stand out, like a stone
material.
■ Perhaps the columns could be wood for the full height; the amount of stucco "washes out" the
design. (Fu — considering installing slate on the front of the porch.)
■ Regarding finishes at the gable ends; detail on sheet A7 was changed to indicate "plywood". (Fu —
will be stucco with wood panels.)
■ Simulated true divided light windows need to be installed.
■ The paving and the stairwell at the rear of the building leading to the basement is open, harsh and
has lot of hardscape. Has the appearance of an apartment building; consider adding a tree
(perhaps in a tree well or a planter strip) to shade the stairwell and soften the appearance of this
area. (Fu — can do this. Strohmeier — will need to be certain that adequate back up area is still
provided from garage.)
■ The garage doors look nice; clarified that they will be wood with windows at the top. Important that
the windows be clearly noted on the plans for the garage doors. The design of the garage doors is
critical; they must be installed as shown on plans.
■ The garage door looks too large; could specify a garage door style that looks more like two
separate doors.
■ The project has come a long way since the original proposal; but there is still a lack of detail on the
plans.
Public comments:
Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive spoke:
Thought that a direct exit from the basement, rather than a ladder, could lead to an illegal apartment
in the basement.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Applicant appears amenable to making the suggested changes.
Many details are missing, suggested continuing the item.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application to the Regular Action Calendar once all of the
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
remaining items have been addressed on the plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to continue this item to the Regular Action Calendar when
the plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner
Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
7:48 p.m.
Chair Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion with respect to
Agenda Item 5 (1333 Howard Avenue), since he has a business relationship with the property owner.
5. 1333 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
(HERBERT PEREZ, APPLICANT; JOHN BELTRAMO, ARCHITECT; MICHAEL GIOTINIS, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 12, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Herbert Perez, 1044 Pensacola Street, Foster City represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Do a lot of the students at the Foster City facility come from the Burlingame/Hillsborough area?
(Perez — yes, about 150 students from the area, including San Mateo.)
■ Do children typically walk directly out to a car, or do parents park and pick up their children. (Perez
— many parents like to watch their children, or children will remain in the facility until they see their
parents' cars. Older students come and leave on their own. Parking in the public lot behind the
facility is available for $1 for 10 hours.)
■ Are age -specific classes held simultaneously? (Perez — not in Foster City. Classes will be run by
age group.)
■ Will membership be capped? (Perez — will be capped due to staffing limitations and the market.)
■ Commended on completeness of the application.
■ Asked if the applicant had ever looked at the Rollins Road area? (Perez — business is family -
centric; parents want to be in an area with shopping and visibility. Rollins Road area is not
consistent with his business model.)
■ Believes the use will bring a lot of foot traffic to Howard Avenue.
■ To the right of the rear door a window is shown on the plan; will it remain? (Perez — two windows
actually exist and will remain.)
■ The transition between classes is very synchronized. (Perez — Perry's would have had other peaks
for business. With the drop off in the rear, there will not likely be impacts. Also, the parents are
accustomed to finding the path of least resistance to the facility.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
Public comments:
Linda Koelling (Vice -Mayor of Foster City), 860 Meridian Bay Lane, Foster City spoke
■ Has watched the business grow and flourish in Foster City.
■ Parents are able to funnel the students in and out efficiently.
■ Happy that the applicant has been able to expand to another location.
■ The business operator is very family oriented, and gives back to the community.
■ Will be an asset to the community.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed
Additional Commission comments:
Noted additional "green" parking zones along Howard Avenue; as well as connectivity between the
public parking lots; there is a lot of parking available in the area. Can park in the area and use
businesses throughout the area.
Noted that 75% of students are under the age of 16.
Supportive of request; will add foot traffic to the area.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the martial arts studio shall be limited to 4,812 SF on the ground level withl ,132 SF of storage
on the mezzanine level within the existing commercial building at 1333 Howard Avenue, as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped March 10, 2010, sheets A0.0,
A0.2, A1.1, A2.0 and A2.1;
2. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance shall apply only to a martial arts studio and
shall become void if the martial arts studio ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever
expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement;
3. that all activities associated with the martial arts studio shall occur indoor only; no portion of the
exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the martial arts studio;
4. that the martial arts studio may only be open for business on Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m. and on Saturdays and Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; a break between sessions
shall be provided to accommodate transitions between classes;
5. that no tournaments shall be held at this site;
6. that any changes to the floor area, use, or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as
stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit;
7. that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning, Public Works and Building
Divisions;
8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 11 and February 25, 2010 memos, the Fire
Marshal's and City Engineer's March 1, 2010 memos, the City Arborist's March 2, 2010 memo and
the NPDES Coordinator's February 26, 2010 memo shall be met;
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 1 Z 2010
9. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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;
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; and
11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Is drop off at the rearpossible from the public parking lot? (Meeker— do not have purview over the
property that is not part of the application.)
Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1.
(Commissioner Vistica absent, Commissioner Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
Chair Terrones returned to the dais.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
6. 1596 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA
RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (DANIELLE CAPONI BOLLA, APPLICANT; LAWSON WILLARD ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHITECT: ALYCE M. DENKE. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Danielle Caponi Bolla, 1596 Columbus Avenue; Peter Bach, Bach Construction, Woodside; represented the
applicant.
Commission comments:
• Nice design; complements the existing building nicely.
■ Noted widening of the stair to improve accessibility? (Bolls — wanted to provide room for a lift for
her grandmother's wheelchair.)
■ There are no windows on the north side of the upper floor family room; is this intentional? (Bolla —
did this intentionally in order to protect privacy of the neighbors; the other large window in the area
provides a lot of light to the room.)
■ What is the design of the front entry columns? (Bolls — square to match the design of the house,
and will be finished with wood.)
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
■ Clarified design of windows. (Bolla — will provide wood windows on the front elevation; will provide
aluminum clad wood windows elsewhere. Three existing windows from the existing first floor
bedroom will be re -used in the second floor family room along the left side elevation.)
■ Has the existing foundation been investigated? (Bolla/Bach — is a slab on grade, will need to install
additional footings for the addition; Blue Stone Engineering in Walnut Creek is working on the
foundation plan)
■ Be careful with the addition, there is some settling already.
■ On the rear, there are some nice windows with an open feel; the porch above the front porch looks
a bit boxy, is there another approach for this element to give it a similar feel to the rear of the
home? (Bolla — could streamline the design somewhat; will explore this element again.)
■ Bedroom 1 is a pretty deep space; is there no way to eliminate the Variance? (Bolla — have tried to
avoid a Variance, but have not been able to achieve.)
■ No shower in the bathroom? (Bolls — no shower in one bathroom, but do have them in others.)
■ Noted window in front of sink. (Bolla — this window will should not be present, will be removed.)
■ Like the design and the closed soffits.
■ Justification for the Variance is the narrow frontage; no choice but to attach the garage.
■ Are sliders proposed at the rear of the dining room? (Bolla — yes.)
Public comments:
No one spoke.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when the plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m.
Commissioner Auran indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion with
respect to Agenda Item 7 (1121 Drake Avenue), since he has a business relationship with the property
owner. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself since she resides within 500-feet of the
property. They left the Council Chambers.
7. 1121 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DIANA KO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 12, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
Diana Ko, 1121 Drake Avenue and James Wong, 207 Northwood Drive, South San Francisco; represented
the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ What type of roofing material will be used? (Ko — composition shingles.)
■ Would like to see a few more knee braces added in the gable ends at the sides of the house.
(Wong — couldn't provide knee braces because of the fire rating requirement.) Knee braces are
included as part of the overhang and should be exempt from the fire rating.
■ Clarify the type of siding to be used; on second floor elevation, there appears to be differing styles
of siding used; clarify on elevations.
■ Likes the front porch, but not sure if the "trellis" over the front door is appropriate; it compresses the
front door. Consider a different look to the front entry. Perhaps carry the front porch across the
front fagade.
■ Looks like the garage door is compressed; the lot is fairly flat.
■ Consider placing a simple gable over the entry to break up the long stretch of roof on the first floor.
■ Good justification for the Variance; will emphasize the porch and de-emphasize the garage.
■ Clarified that there are windows on the upper portion of the garage door; be certain that these
elements remain part of the design. (Ko — have thought of adding a trellis above the garage door,
or adding siding above the door.)
■ The trellis at the back door looks like an after thought; look at that element of the design. Perhaps
lower the height of the trellis, and make it a bit wider.
Public comments:
No one spoke.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul.
Discussion of motion:
Justification for the Variance is that the design guidelines encourage front porches and de-
emphasizing the garage.
Chair Terrones called fora 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 4-0-2-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent,
Commissioners Auran and Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:49 p.m.
Commissioners Auran and Yie returned to the dais.
8. 1349 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
DANIEL J. STRAMBI. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 12, 2010
The applicant had requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission's April 26, 2010
agenda.
Commissioner Lindstrom made a motion to continue the item to the April 26, 2010 Design Review Study
Calendar, as requested by the applicant.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul.
Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to continue this item to the April 26, 2010 Design Review
Study calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Nothing to report.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 5, 2010:
Nothing to report.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — March, 2010:
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Yie, Secretary
13