HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 08.09.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, August 9, 2010 — 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Vistica called the August 9, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: Commissioners Lindstrom and Gaul
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and
City Attorney, Gus Guinan
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the July 12 and
July 26, 2010 regular meetings of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
July 26, 2010; page 14; eleventh bullet under "Commission Comments';- second sentence; change
"lease" to "least".
July 26, 2010; bottom of page 24; move "There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed" to page 25, after last bullet under "Commission comments.
Motion passed, July 12, 2010: 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Gaul absent, Commissioner Vistica
recused); July 26, 2010: 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Gaul absent, Commissioner Terrones
recused).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
Noted a concern expressed by an architect at the last meeting regarding the impact of Feng Shui
upon the design of a residence; how does this fit into the City's design guidelines? Shouldn't take
these personal preferences into consideration when evaluating a design.
Observed that in some developments the homeowner's association will dictate colors and finishes;
a property owner has a right to do what he wishes, but you must also respect community values.
Commissioner A uran noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Item
1 (340 Lorton Avenue), since he has had a business relationship with the property owner within the past
year. He left the Council Chambers.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
VI. STUDY ITEMS
340 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 205, ZONED C-2 SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA HEALTH SERVICE USE (THERAPIST)
(SAMANTHA CHEN, APPLICANT; AND SABATINI FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated August 9, 2010.
Commission comments:
Why couldn't this item have been brought directly forward as an action item? (Meeker — if it is the
desire of the Commission to do so in the future, then staff will bring similar items forward directly as
action items.)
This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by
the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m.
Commissioner Auran returned to the dais.
Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of Item 2 (1864 Rollins
Road), since his firm is involved in the project. He left the Council Chambers.
2. 1864 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE (INDOOR FUTSAL, SOFTBALL AND LACROSSE) AND VARIANCES
FOR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (BURLINGAMER, LLC, APPLICANT; DREILING TERRONES
ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; AND ARTHUR RUDE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated August 9, 2010.
Commission comments:
■ Questioned the allowable number of compact parking spaces (20% of the total required)? They may
be entitled to more compact spaces; confirm the number of such spaces permitted.
■ The applicant's parking study has demonstrated the adequacy of parking; this has also been
confirmed by the City's traffic engineer.
■ What are the age groups involved in the activities?
■ Clarify that if there are tournaments teams will be staged when they arrive and leave the facility.
■ What types of tournaments will be allowed; how many people involved in each tournament?
■ Clarify whether or not general spectators will be allowed on the property.
■ What is the material to be used on the interior playing fields?
• Supportive of the use.
This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
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 Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. Item 3b (1720 Adeline Drive) was removed from the consent calendar by Steve Lo, 1508 Cabrillo
Avenue.
3a. 1900 BROADWAY, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
ATTACHED GARAGE (KAREN DOUGLASS, APPLICANT; STEVE GROTE, ARCHITECT; AND
JOHN AND KRISTIN DOKOZA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
3c. 1440 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA -APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES
TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT (TIM RADUENZ,
FORM ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DOROTHY R. WURLITZER TR, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Cauchi moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Vistica called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed: Item 3a; 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Gaul absent,
Commissioner Vistica recused); Item 3b: 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Gaul absent.). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m.
VIIl. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3b. 1720 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC.,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND HOYMAN AND TRAM HONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated August 9, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Vistica opened the public hearing.
James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant.
Noted that the neighbors to the left wished to have the bedroom window reduced in size, but it is
nearly 40-feet away from that neighbor and would not appear to be a problem.
Commission comments:
None.
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
Public comments:
Steve Lo, 1508 Cabrillo Avenue and Suzanne Malik, 1718 Adeline Drive; spoke:
The height of the master bedroom window has not been reduced on the left elevation as requested.
Landscaping would not be acceptable as a means of protecting privacy.
■ Stated that the Building Official has indicated that if the window is reduced in size, the room would
remain adequate for egress purposes.
■ The privacy of his daughter will be impacted if the window is not reduced in size as requested.
■ Want the utilities to be run over and under the subject property, not across her property. (Chu — will
ensure that utilities are run from Cabrillo Avenue.)
■ Ensure that when fences and wall on the common property line are removed, that her landscaping
is not impacted. (Chu - Will ensure that landscaping is not impacted.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Fully understands the neighbor's concerns; but feels this could be a slippery slope; in this instance,
the windows in question are between 35-40 feet from a side property line shared with the neighbor.
Landscaping could still be used as an option to address the neighbor's concern.
■ Privacy is not regulated by the City's zoning regulations; though the Commission does attempt to
mediate between the applicant and neighbors in this type of instance.
■ The peak of the garage will potentially obscure part of the window.
■ The overhead lines and sanitary sewer both run down Cabrillo Avenue, so there is no need to
include a condition requiring connections at these locations, since this will already be required.
Commissioner Cauchi 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 July 28, 2010, sheets A.3 through A.5; and date stamped July 6, 2010, sheets A.1, A.2,
A.6, 1-1.0 and Boundary 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 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 May 20, 2010, and July 7, 2010 memos, the City
Engineer's June 2, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 20, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's
May 24, 2010 and July 10, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 20, 2010 memo shall
be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
121
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
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 foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on
the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by
the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Vistica called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners
Lindstrom and Gaul absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
4. 1118 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIMITED FOOD SERVICE FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT (LEAH CHEN, APPLICANT; KEN FANG, CND DESIGN SERVICE, INC., DESIGNER;
AND LOUISA ZEE AND LORENZ KAO. PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated August 9, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Vistica opened the public hearing.
Leah Chen, 3512 Geary Boulevard, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Noted that a lot of yogurt shops have been appearing in Burlingame; has the applicant researched
the competition in the neighborhood? (Chen — is aware of the other yogurt businesses located in
the area; will provide an opportunity for patrons to create their own yogurt.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Auran 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 July 19, 2010, sheets A-0 through A-3, HD-1, AD-0, E-1 and E-2, and P-1 and P-2;
2. that this business location to be occupied by a limited food service food establishment, with 145 SF
of seating area, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service food
establishment or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment,
and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved;
3. that the 145 SF area of on -site seating of the limited food service food establishment shall be
enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this
conditional use permit;
4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with
the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building
and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the
business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business;
6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food
from this premise;
7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within
10' of the property line;
8. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food
establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void;
9. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment
permit issued by the city;
10. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 2, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 1,
2010 memo, the City Engineer's July 12, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisors July 9, 2010 memo
and the NPDES Coordinator's July 2, 2010 memo shall be met; and
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 2007 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these
conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these
conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
Hopes that the applicant has done her research; there are already four or five similar
establishments in town; is a bit leary of having so many similar establishments in the area.
One of the big draws will be the self-service aspect of the proposed business.
Chair Vistica called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners
Lindstrom and Gaul absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 1400 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (RAY BRAYER, BRAYER CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND
CHRISTOPHER AND LISA CHAT. PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated August 9, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Vistica opened the public comment period.
None.
Ray Brayer, 228 Lorton Avenue; represented the applicant.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
Commission comments:
■ What is the material used on the existing windows? (Brayer — vinyl -clad, simulated divided light;
they were replaced only two years ago. Would be changing roughly 35% of the windows on the first
floor. It appears that some of the vinyl windows have been painted.)
■ Approximately 60-70% of the windows will be new? (Brayer— yes; but tearing out the windows and
trim would be an additional cost that the client may not be able to withstand.)
■ Would it be possible to use aluminum -clad on the new windows? Would like to make this a
condition. (Brayer — no problem with that approach.)
■ Suggested a change to the layout of the master bathroom; consider swinging the door so that it
opens to the right into the room, and reverse the toilet and bath locations. Could also make
additional changes to provide for a window in the bathroom. (Brayer — the master bath has been
laid out due to the client's desires and the restrictions placed on the design by the stairway
location.)
■ Siding is shown going all the way to the ground on the front; is this a drawing error, it doesn't match
the plan? (Brayer — is an error in the drafting of the plans.)
■ Nice design.
■ Encouraged the applicant to plan for the eventual replacement of the remaining windows. (Brayer —
has already done this.)
■ The existing front elevation is symmetrical; but with the addition, the mass shifts; the bay on the
right will be close to the valley; consider moving it over slightly to the right to eliminate waterproofing
problems. Could also improve the composition of the front elevation. (Brayer — will consider, but
client is concerned about limiting the placement of a bed and nightstands.)
■ Is the existing chimney going to be stuccoed? (Brayer — part of the attraction of the home is the
original fireplace. Will tear it down to the shoulder, then use sheet -metal above to frame it and then
stucco it. The fireplace will be retained as designed if at all possible.)
■ One window on the right, rear elevation appears to be a simple slider; is there a reason for this style
with no muntins? (Brayer — is an existing window; client doesn't wish to replace it if not part of the
plan.)
■ Was a gable vent considered? (Brayer — has considered; but is currently matching existing
detailing, but may, in fact provide it.)
■ Design is nicely articulated, but is a bit concerned about lack of detail. Provide more information
regarding the trim package; particularly what is happening around the openings.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
■ Mr. Brayer generally does good designs.
■ Applauds that only one bathroom is provided for three bedrooms.
■ Glad the Commission is encouraging the new windows to be aluminum -clad; with planning for this
in the future for replacement of the existing windows.
■ A window in the bathroom is important; a skylight is another option. Perhaps install a sun -tube as
an alternative to provide natural light.
Additional applicant comments:
The skylights in the bathroom are operable.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Like the design, it works well with the neighborhood.
Want to see aluminum clad windows and wood vents.
Encouraged the applicant to consider the concerns expressed by the Commission.
Chair Vistica 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 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Gaul
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:19
p.m.
6. 1536 & 1540 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1:
APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-
EMERGENCE OF TWO PARCELS PREVIOUSLY MERGED BY A USE;
1536 NEWLANDS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHTAND
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE;
1540 NEWLANDS AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FORA
NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
(JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DAVID AND DEBRA
SPRENG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated August 9, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Vistica opened the public comment period.
■ Is the re-emergence of the lots considered a subdivision? (Meeker — no, the lots were merged for
tax purposes previously, but the lots have never been consolidated; the underlying lots still exist
and will re-emerge once the structures crossing the common property line are removed.)
■ If the Commission wanted to allow a "flag lot" with another lot in front; could this occur? (Meeker —
would require a new subdivision and potentially additional variances.)
■ Asked if the property owner had a right to subdivide the property? (Meeker — the matter before the
Commission is not a new subdivision; it is the re-emergence of two lots that have never been
merged and are still lots of record.)
■ Asked if the Commission may deny the request for the re-emergence? (Guinan — the Commission
must consider all information provide during the public hearings regarding the project and determine
if the facts support approval of the requests. Meeker — noted that the Commission should also
consider whether the re-emerging lots are out of character with the other lots within the
neighborhood.)
■ Asked what information was provided to Page & Turnbull for the re-evaluation? (Meeker — have
considered all information available at the time that the firm was enlisted to perform the evaluation.
Additional information submitted after that time will be considered as part of the public hearing.)
■ Clarified that non -hillside lots are subject to a 5,000 square foot minimum lot area.
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
Asked if further CEQA analysis will be required? (Meeker — noted that the purpose of the "study"
hearing is to determine if additional environmental analysis is required. To date, only the historic
issue has been identified for analysis.)
Asked about the criteria for determining historic significance? (Meeker — the criteria are stated in
the staff report. If requests for additional information are made, this information will be gathered
and provided.)
Debra Spreng, 2335 Oakdale Drive, Hillsborough and James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo;
represented the applicant.
■ Purchased the property in December 2009; based decision upon Page & Turnbull's determination
that the property was not historically significant. Also paid for further analysis after additional
information was submitted; continued to find the structures not of historic significance.
■ Noted that the existing buildings do not comply with current building codes.
■ Remodeling the existing front home would cost approximately $1-million; hence, made the decision
to build two new homes to replace the existing structures.
■ French and Tudor designs are proposed.
■ Homes share some details.
■ Comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of height and the declining height envelope
encroachment.
■ The structures are quite distant from the neighbors; shouldn't impact the neighbors.
Commission comments:
■ Did the applicant research a means of building without removing the front home from the property?
Would like the home saved if at all possible. Feels there is probably enough property available to
provide the ability to still demolish the rear home and construct a new second home. (Chu — there
is no way to comply with all of the requirements and still preserve useable yard space with that type
of approach. The property owner has determined that renovation will cost around $1-million; the
cost was determined through consultation with a reputable local builder. There are a lot of
structural problems that would be encountered in the remodeling.)
■ There are benefits to be derived from not demolishing both homes; the home would not be taken to
a landfill and would be preserved as one of the finer homes in the City.
■ Would rather consider Variances that would preserve the front home; there may be a way to make it
work.
■ The historic evaluations note that the homes are both in good condition.
■ Has the designer of the structure been found to be significant, other than as an architect? (Meeker
— feels that the professional analysis that has been prepared has taken all aspects of the
background into consideration. Can pose the question to the consultant.)
■ The Commission has a couple of recourses; design review and environmental review. Does the
Commission accept the historic analysis?
■ There are few older homes in Burlingame that meet current codes. There are ways to preserve the
house without bringing the structure fully up to code; on behalf of the community, the Commission is
requesting that the applicant consider this type of approach. Would be willing to consider other
special considerations in lieu of removing the front structure from the property; appealing to the
property owner to take this into consideration.
■ Given the findings of the historic analysis, there is little that the Commission can stand behind to
prevent the existing structures from being demolished.
■ Doesn't feel that the design solution is appropriate; a 60-80 year solution, as expressed by the
applicant is not enough; would like to see a 100-year solution.
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
■ Concern about the flat roof portions shown on the designs; look at the design in this area.
■ Are handsome homes, but need a design solution that is as substantial as what is being removed.
■ Noted that staff has indicated that retaining the current home on the lot would require re -subdivision
of the property. The City has already set a standard by re -building its library and fire station to
reflect the design of the prior structures; why doesn't the design of the new structures in this case,
reflect the design present on the property currently.
■ The existing homes aren't built to current standards; should consider the project as it will result in
new code -compliant structures.
■ Would like to see the new design reflect some of the design features of the existing, front home.
(Speng — did consider bringing in detail to reflect the style of the existing home; but was given the
opinion not to copy the existing design too much. Had the historic report come back demonstrating
that the structure is significant; would have considered retention of the home. The existing
structures do not meet the requirements.)
■ Has faith in the historic evaluation that has been completed, but still feels that there are ways to
provide a project that is more beneficial to the community. Is clear that the Commission is open to
requests for Variances or other forms of permits that would allow preservation of the front structure.
Doesn't appear that much consideration has been given to this type of approach.
Public comments:
Joe Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; Jeff Londer, 216 Bancroft Road;
and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
■ Feels that the Page & Turnbull evaluation is incomplete.
■ Requested that the applicant's requests be denied.
■ Submitted a letter (Baylock letter dated August 9, 2010) documenting further information regarding
the property, the architect, occupants, and builder.
■ The Commission is in an interesting position; nine months ago Anna Shimko provided a
presentation to the Commission regarding the CEQA process and the effect upon historic
resources.
■ The Commission has recommended that an historic inventory be prepared for the Burlingame Park
neighborhood.
■ Noted that prior Commission comments asked if the community should weigh-in on what is
significant in Burlingame.
■ Benefits of historic designation were enumerated previously.
■ Feels that the historic report is incomplete; doesn't address the impact upon Burlingame Park.
■ Fourteen of the twenty cities in San Mateo County have historic inventories.
■ The responsibility to address this issue is placed on the Commission; the Commission has
adequate authority to deny the project.
■ Noted that the owner was Lorenz Hanson; was the manager for the Bank of San Francisco; is
referenced in the Carey and Company evaluation for the Downtown Specific Plan. The Page &
Turnbull report identified the bank name in error; this is shoddy work. He is a person of local
significance. Noted that the bank itself was significant; one of California's early banks. Was
instrumental in helping the City through the depression.
■ Was one of the founding members of "Sons in Retirement".
■ Hanson was a treasurer for various notable San Mateo County organizations.
■ Worked on Chief Justice Earl Warren's campaign in San Mateo County.
■ First person ever awarded a lifetime membership in the Chamber of Commerce.
■ With respect to the architect; need to ask what it takes to become an architect of local significance
within the City. A quick search of Andrew P. Hill provides a lot of information, including involvement
II
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
in designs for well-known persons. Referenced other notable homes within other cities in the Bay
Area.
■ Hill did not stay an architect for long; he has few homes that he has designed.
■ With respect to the builder; found that the builder was a founding member of one of the earliest
churches formed in Burlingame. Also designed the parish hall for that church.
■ There are three areas that could be considered significant from a local standpoint; hasn't been
adequately evaluated. Feels that the report is inadequate to rely upon.
■ The home stands at a "T" at Central Avenue and Newlands Avenue; the lot is somewhat larger than
normal; includes 110-feet of width, rather than 100-feet as would normally be the norm.
■ The home is in remarkable shape.
■ Encouraged the Commission to exercise community responsibility.
■ The demolition of 1540 Newlands Avenue would not be permitted in many cities in the State and
country; why? Because in other cities, communities encourage restoration and preservation of
such structures, through the use of historic building codes and other tax incentives that encourage
rehabilitation.
■ Other communities have observed how significant such homes are to a community's prosperity.
■ Disagrees with many of the findings in the historic resource evaluation.
■ Hopes that the applicant reconsiders the demolition of at least the front home on the property.
■ Hopes also that the Commission begins the in-depth discussion of preparing an inventory for the
entire City. This is a tool that many other communities use to evaluate properties; Burlingame has
no tools.
■ Striking that the home "does not appear on a local list" of potentially historic properties; this cannot
occur because the City doesn't have a list. It is also more difficult to have properties included on
State or federal lists due to the lack of a local inventory.
■ What will the legacy of the Planning Commission be? Ask whether this property will be another
sacrificial Iamb that is taken to the landfill, or can it be torch -bearer for a new era.
■ The home is a unique and stately structure that should be preserved. Too often such homes are
demolished in the name of progress.
■ Urged preservation of the front structure, with a new second home behind it.
■ The front home is "special", but hasn't been found by the State or a consultant to be special. This
was a property bought strictly for profit. The rules are the same for all.
■ The new home designs have been described as handsome, but also resulting in cookie -cutter
designs; this type of home is appearing all over the City.
■ Mr. Chu has designed nearly half of the designs of new homes that have been built in the City in the
last six to eight years.
■ Referenced proposed modifications to an Eichler home in the past that was denied by the
Commission.
■ Encouraged the Commission to deny the project.
■ Consider the height of the structure being replaced in comparison to the proposed new homes.
■ A new structure should not require exceptions to the City's code standards.
■ Send the entire project back to the drawing -board.
Additional Commission comments:
With respect to 1536 Newlands Avenue; doesn't feel the flat roof portion is a good design solution.
■ The left elevation of that home includes a lot of long roof that should be articulated differently.
■ On 1540 Newlands Avenue; feels that the front entry is rather boring; is a simple arched portal into
the house; doesn't emphasize the entry.
■ The flat roof solution is not a good solution.
■ The gable on 1540 Newlands Avenue needs some more attention.
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
■ If the designs move forward, they need more attention.
■ The windows from the living room could be doors to a front porch area; consider extending the
porch toward the street, uncovered, to provide more circulation area.
■ One of the houses should emulate some of the design features of the existing front home.
■ The homes are not distinct enough from one another; would prefer that the design is more organic
and not built together.
■ On Page 15 of the study; states that 1540 Newlands Avenue is unique due to its scale and
placement; a rare example. It gives the neighborhood life that you don't get with uniform sized lots.
■ The consultant states that the property is not uncommon; is it common?
■ Unfortunately we have a vacuum at the local level without a local historic program.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
■ With respect to 1536 Newlands Avenue; on the front porch, it could be more grand and useable if
the entry doors were pulled back further.
■ Agrees with the comments regarding embracing the spirit of the designs present on the property
and develop a design that will reflect the grandeur of the existing homes.
■ There are some issues that need further evaluation by the historic consultant.
■ The City doesn't have a lot of tools at its disposal given the lack of an historic registry.
• Cannot support the current home designs.
■ Generally likes the project architect's designs, but also agrees that the designs are appearing in a
lot of different places.
■ Not certain that the Commission can even get to the point of addressing the design.
■ Feels that more research needs to be done relative to the ownership, architect and builder; seems
to have missed the point in a lot of areas.
■ Can't support the project as currently designed.
■ Need to look at what is being taken away from the property; could possibly support if the design
reflects the nature of the existing development.
■ Would like to hear more public discussion of this topic in the community.
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
There has been a lot of discussion and the tendencies of the Commission have been fairly
consistent, encouraged the applicant to be responsive.
Chair Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Lindstrom and
Gaul absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
9: 27 p.m.
7. 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA —
APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN
EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT (STEVE SARVER, SAN FRANCISCO SOUP COMPANY,
APPLICANT; VALERIA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AND THE SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated August 9, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Vistica opened the public comment period.
Nico Valerio, 5858 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Hit a home -run with the design; it is very inviting.
• Suggested installing a hose -bib.
■ Unfortunate that the original rosewood doors are disposed of during the renovation; but happy that
the transom windows are being retained.
■ Asked for clarification regarding the awning colors. (Valerio — explained that the awnings will be
beige, the entry canopy over the door will be black.)
■ Where does the business exist in other locations? (Valerio — in San Francisco.)
■ Asked about the color of the tile base? Concerned about light-colored grout looking dirty. (Valerio
— the color will be more ivory, with charcoal grout.)
■ Will be a lot of sun in the afternoon; will there be another form of sun screen? (Valerio — considered
a green screen to the right of the entrance, but would have closed it off too much. The street tree
may help the situation.)
■ Perhaps consider a slate base as an alternative to the tile. (Valerio — trying to respect the design of
the building.)
■ Consider perhaps a terra-cotta tile at the base with a tighter grout pattern.
■ Noted that the soft, natural materials are being eliminated and replaced with anodized aluminum
storefront; would prefer a painted finish rather than anodized to create a softer touch to pedestrians.
■ Likes the idea of connecting the interior of the business to the street.
■ Brick could also work on the base.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; spoke:
■ Take into consideration the use of more natural materials in the design; referenced the changes to
former Towles.
■ Used Anthropologie as a good design example, as well as Comerica Bank.
■ Noted that Chicken -Chicken (now Anthropologie) faced the same direction and did not have
problems with the sun in the afternoon.
■ Noted that in 2006 at the joint meeting between the City Council/Planning Commission that a hose
bib would be required for all renovations of store fronts. (Meeker — Clarified that the discussion
occurred in 2007 at a City Council meeting; recalls that the requirement only applied to storefronts
on Burlingame Avenue.)
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
■ Encouraged the applicant to work with staff to consider sign placement; also consider the existing
blade sign.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
Chair Vistica 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 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Gaul
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50
p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
■ There were no actions to report from the August 2, 2010 City Council meeting, as the meeting was
canceled.
FYI: 1021 Cortez Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design
Review project:
■ Accepted.
FYI: 1321 Balboa Avenue — review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design
Review project:
■ Accepted.
FYI: 1117 Balboa Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Design
Review project:
■ Accepted.
FYI: 600 Airport Boulevard — update on sign permit status:
■ Accepted.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — July, 2010:
■ Accepted.
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes August 9, 2010
Miscellaneous:
Chair Vistica requested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee come up with a means of
discouraging changes to approved plans to reduce the number of FYls that appear on Commission
agendas. He also requested information regarding an upcoming meeting regarding the hospital
pedestrian trail; should include the Commission. (Meeker — will review and provide an update.)
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Yie, Secretary
16