HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.25.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
February 25, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the February 25, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Cauchi, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker and Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the minutes of the February
11, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; commented that she regrets the loss of a covered parking space
at 1417 Bernal Avenue (Agenda Item 2) and suggested that the Commission consider prohibiting
the installation of a 220v electrical circuit in the rumpus room. She indicated that she supported the
proposal for 1530 Drake Avenue (Agenda Item 1).
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1530 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR LOWER
LEVEL ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DII LEWIS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND
DANIEL AND HARRIET DOWER. PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated February 25, 2008.
Commission comments:
On Variance application form, applicant should re -address matter of exceptional circumstances as
support of Variance; pretty typical size lot.
How tall is existing unfinished basement; there may be some opportunity for development in that area.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
■ Confused by lattice finish over exterior walls below deck; revise plans to identify how lattice will
interface with exterior finish.
■ Provide the manufacturer for the proposed vinyl windows.
■ On the north side elevation, specify the materials to be used, particularly where the materials appear
to change.
■ An exceptional circumstance on the lot that may support the Variance request could be the existing
height of finished floor above adjacent grade. If it was less than 2'-0", the floor area of the proposed
addition would be exempt.
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 7:10 p.m.
2. 1417 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE FOR RECREATION
PURPOSES (TRENT AND ANNE WRIGHT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WINGES
ARCHITECTS. INC.. ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Community Development Director, William Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated February
25, 2008.
Commission comments:
Clarify why the rumpus room is not considered to be a bedroom.
Clarify type and style of windows and doors.
Identify type of siding (size, shape, material) on garage.
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 7:13 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.
There were no items on the Consent Calendar.
VIIl. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MIMI SIEN,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MICHAEL MA, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 11, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director,
William Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Commission comments:
I±
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
■ Commissioner Brownrigg indicated he would abstain from conversation since he had not
participated in the last discussion of this item before the Commission.
■ Noted that the Commission had clearly requested approved plans from 2006 approval; the item
should be continued.
■ At the prior meeting, there was some uncertainty as to how some of the area was paved, as shown
in the photographs provided by the applicant.
■ Disappointed that there was no response from the applicant to address concerns raised by the
Commission, and no attempt to address the potential solution suggested by the Commission on
February 11, 2008.
■ After a close site inspection, it is hard to believe that what is paved now is what previously existed;
probably would have elicited comments from public works regarding drainage, if the area
represented as being paved previously actually was paved.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Michael Ma, 20660 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino; represented the applicant.
■ The owner doesn't wish to propose further modifications.
■ Front yard paving was not part of prior Planning Commission review. Approved project did not
address paving and landscaping in front.
■ The applicant feels that the photos clearly show conditions that existed prior to the renovation of the
property.
■ Requests that action be taken this evening.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Commission not being punitive; it is only asking that project be built as approved.
■ Applicant has effectively refused to make further modifications to reduce the paving in the area
behind the garage; this was not part of original review because it was not documented as part of the
original submittal.
■ Paving has been added that has become a de -facto additional parking area; even if this is what
existed before does not necessarily mean it is acceptable now; changes were made without
additional review by the Commission.
■ Changes to the project were made in breach of the contract with the City.
■ The Commission has attempted to reach a reasonable, cooperative solution to the problem; but the
applicant has been uncooperative.
Additional comments from Applicant's representative:
They were told by the Planning Division staff that a landscaping and paving plan is not required,
except for new homes.
The property owner has experienced substantial financial and emotional impacts due to the ongoing
situation.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; noted that the applicant has broken the contract with the City.
The Commission has dealt with this project five (5) times previously, excluding this meeting. She
presented project plans from June 2006, showing where the driveway was laid out; there was no
landscape plan. There was never any mention of landscaping or hardscaping in the discussions
leading up to the approval. The assumption on the June 2006 plan is that the area in question
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
would be a planted area. The photos do not clearly show what the material in the area in question
is, prior to the renovations. The applicant has deviated from the approved plans from the beginning.
David Leung, 3066 Hillside Drive; clarified that the Commission is not penalizing the applicant. He
acknowledged that the applicant has violated the contract; but they have made the changes
requested and finished the house as it was supposed to be. Have taken pictures to show the
changes that have been made to the property. Can't do anything more to show what existed
previously. He feels the applicant has supplied everything the Commission has requested.
Further Commission comments:
Asked if there is a solution that can be reached with the applicant's cooperation (the applicant
responded that electrical conduit and irrigation lines exist under the paving; which would prevent
cutting holes in the paving).
Commission suggested a solution that worked with the existing paving pattern, but allowed keeping
paving, while removing portions for additional landscaping.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
More Commission comments:
The Commission has no choice but to deny the request and require the site to be constructed as
shown on the June 2006 plans which clearly show the outline of the driveway; areas outside the
driveway should be landscaped; the applicant has not worked cooperatively with the Commission to
arrive at an agreeable solution.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the application with prejudice, and require the site to be finished in
accordance with the approved, June 2006 plans which clearly indicate the extent of the driveway and, in the
opinion of the Commission, imply that the non -driveway areas are to be landscaped.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
The June 2006 drawings are clear as to what the boundaries were for the paving.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to deny with prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-0-1
(CommissionerBrownrigg abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:48 p.m.
4. 1101 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARISA
RAMOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND ONI RAMOS, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
19
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
Marissa Ramos, 1101 Vancouver Avenue; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ On Variance application form, clarificaty the exceptional circumstances that warrant approval of a
Variance.
■ The windows (which include imitation mullions) are not of an acceptable design; if the windows
were of a higher quality design (simulated true divided lights) perhaps the Variance could be
supported.
■ The residence is at a prominent location (on a corner lot), the design of the windows is critical since
the site is so visible.
■ The window placement is acceptable, but the window type is not.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; noted that the applicant has been caught twice for working without
Building Permits. She believes that the owners probably knew of the need for a building permit.
Who is the contractor that did the work without a permit? She supports requiring the windows to be
changed.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Osterling moved to refer the project to a design reviewer with specific direction to review the
window and door design and trim details.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Discussion of motion:
Approval of the Variance may be warranted since the modifications create visual interest.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion refer the matter to a design reviewer. The motion
passed 6-0-0. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
5. 2508 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MGS CONSTRUCTION,
APPLICANT; DAVID HIRZEL, DESIGNER; LENA AND DOMINIC CHANG, PROPERTY OWNERS)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Asked why the exercise room not counted as a bedroom. Staff noted that the Municipal Code
states a room is cannot be considered a bedroom if the only way to enter it is through another
bedroom. The proposed exercise room can only be accessed through bedroom 2.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
David Hirzel, P. O. Box 1808, Pacifica; represented the applicant.
Indicated that the applicant has met with the neighbor; they fully understand the project and don't
object to it.
Additional Commission comments:
■ The project has benefitted from design review.
■ Asked if the stonework on the chimney will remain. Applicant noted there will be no change to the
chimney, front door, or front stair, and that all details on the existing front elevation will remain.
■ Requested that the applicant clarify on the plans that details on the front elevation, including the
front door, will not change.
■ Noted that the garage door doesn't seem to blend with the design.
■ Asked if there was a reason the garage roof was lowered, as this change exposes more of the wall
on the house.
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission discussion:
The project has improved significantly.
Note on the plans that existing conditions on the front fagade are to remain.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 9, 2007 (Sheets Al, A2.1, A4, AB1, 1-1) and February 13, 2008 (Sheets A2.0
and A3.0), that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the design elements on the existing front fagade shall remain, and this shall be reflected on the
plans prior to issuance of a building permit;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 5, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's
September 5, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 4, 2007 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's September 4, 2007 memo shall be met;
4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and
Variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
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 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), moving or changing windows and architectural
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior
or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
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
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. 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 Department; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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 Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Garage door is a striking change.
The applicant's attempt to provide the required garage without encroaching too much upon the
adjacent property is justification for the Variance.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
Commissioners Vistica and Brownrigg recused themselves and left the dais prior to consideration of Item 6.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
Commissioner Vistica is the applicant for that item.
6. 24 ARUNDEL ROAD, 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 (STANLEY VISTICA AND LISA HAPPICH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND
STANLEY VISTICA, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director
William Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Half-size plans were entirely readable.
Stanley Vistica and Lisa Happich, 24 Arundel Road, represented the applicant.
Additional Commission comments:
Commission's prior comments have been addressed.
Uninhabitable basement and 12-foot ceilings count toward floor area, but are not really habitable
area; these conditions are justification for the Variances.
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 Department date
stamped February 13, 2008, sheets A.4 and A.8, and date stamped December 18, 2007, sheets
Al. through A.3 and A.5 through A.7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 28, 2007 memo, and the City Engineer's,
Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's July 2, 2007, memos shall be met;
3. 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;
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), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
�1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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
9. 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;
10. 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 Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Applicant is restoring front porch which improves the appearance of the structure.
The existing basement condition, which is more than 2-feet above grade, is an existing condition
that cannot be modified, and inclusion of the 12-foot non -habitable ceiling area as floor area is
justification for the Variance.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Commissioners
Vistica and Brownrigg recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m.
Commissioners Vistica and Brownrigg returned to the dais.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
February 25, 2008
7. 34 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST
FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MR. G. RODRIGUEZ, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; AND JOE PELA, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ None
Joe Pela, 520 Walker Drive, Mountain View; represented the applicant.
■ Explained justification for Variance.
■ Have revised drawings to match existing side setback.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Porch is an improvement over prior design but may be fairly blank and stark; would like more
planting area in front of it.
■ Requested explanation why the roof on the new porch can't simply be designed as a gable into the
existing tiled, sloped parapet.
■ Asked if the porch will include a flat ceiling; could put a triangular pattern of tiles to create a vent in
front gable.
■ Finish off the top of the guard rail, perhaps with tile.
■ Suggested submittal of a trim package for windows to further improve the appearance of the house,
primarily at areas viewed from the front of the building.
Public comments:
■ None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg 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 Department date
stamped February 13, 2008, sheets 1 through 6, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of
the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that additional landscaping shall be provided within the front -yard area, subject to review by the
Planning Commission as an FYI;
3. that a tile cap shall be installed on the porch rail, subject to review by the Planning Commission as
an FYI;
4. that a tile vent shall be installed within the porch gable, subject to review by the Planning
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
Commission as an FYI;
5. that a trim package for the front windows shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission
as an FYI;
6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 1, 2007, memo, and the City Engineer's
and NPDES Coordinator's November 26, 2007, memos shall be met;
7. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Front Setback
Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
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 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;
10. 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;
11. 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
12. 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Discussion of motion:
The justification for the Variance is that the design changes will enhance the architectural appeal of
the structure.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
Further Commission comments:
It was suggested that a Planning Commission subcommittee review the parameters for allowing bay
windows and front porches to encroach into front setbacks, since this is generally supported by the
Commission, particularly when this type of change is made to existing structures.
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 815 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NEIL YELLIN & JANET ZOLA, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WILLIAM DUFF, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director,
William Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Neil Yellin, 815 Crossway Road; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Complemented design. Nice materials, nicely drawn. Addition is very respectful of existing design.
■ Massing of the side elevation at garage wall and area above is a rather large wall, there needs to be
some articulation to assist in breaking up the blank space, perhaps some windows into the garage.
■ Perhaps bring the trellis element along to the side, or some other design solution, to help break up
mass of the wall.
■ On other side of house; there is a large, blank shingled space; look at that side to see if something
could be done on second floor addition to break up mass.
■ Clarify why the eaves are being cut back.
■ Note that roofing materials on the second floor will match the first floor roofing; specify the roofing
material.
■ Clarify details on left side of rear elevation. Correct drawing error of dark lines between first and
second story.
■ Clarify the design of the rear porch rail, and that it will be wood pickets and wood railing; consider
matching the railing on rear with the front porch railing.
■ Trellis work in back seems lighter than what is in front (6 x 6); consider making rear trellis heavier in
construction.
■ Include notes clarifying the garage door construction.
■ Carry through the negative space reflected on the front porch elsewhere on the home.
Public comments:
Suzanne Sliter, Crossway Road; provided overview of her concerns expressed in her letter to
Commission, dated February 25, 2008. Concerned that the mass of the addition is at the rear of the
structure, adjacent to her backyard. Also, the west elevation is not set in, creating a rear wall that
goes straight up and has a box look.
Additional Commission comments:
Asked if there is an opportunity for additional landscaping to soften the view of the rear of the
residence from the neighbor's property.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
Further Commission comments:
There is an opportunity to beef -up the landscaping on the garage side to break-up wall, and along
other side to soften appearance.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
■ Perhaps consider a belly -band to break up the massing of the side elevation, instead of a trellis
element; however, could also be some room for a trellis without need for a Variance.
■ Would hesitate to bring the trellis feature all the way around the side; asymmetric fashion would be
nice.
■ Windows may be sufficient to soften the appearance of wide, side elevation.
■ The proposal is consistent with the character of the existing residence.
■ Include vines on trellis that would wrap around the side; windows on garage side will also break up
mass.
■ North elevation is mislabeled.
■ Encouraged landscaping on the right side at the rear to soften appearance.
Chair Cauchi 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. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
9. 2673 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (MARWAN ZEIDAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DAVID MIRAFLOR,
DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Marwan Zeidan, 2673 Martinez Drive and David Miraflor, P. O. Box 6910174, Stockton; represented the
applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Commended the applicant for adding to under floor space to increase floor area.
■ Questioned the need for all of the additional full baths.
■ Asked why the existing shutters are being removed; they add to the character of the home.
■ Noted that the plans are difficult to read. Difficult to visualize how the proposed house will look.
■ The proposed concrete balusters are too heavy and inappropriate for the design of the
structure; consider something similar to the design on the front of the structure, or look to other
similar homes in the area for ideas.
■ Noted inconsistencies in trim details between Sheets 4 and 6.
■ Drawings should show a clearer representation of the trim package.
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
■ Noted neighbor comments regarding the Eucalyptus trees on the site; suggested working with the
neighbor to address their concerns.
■ Noted that the proposed curved windows are not consistent with the design of the rest of house.
■ Provide details of the designs of the front door and garage door.
■ Design consistency is required. Current design is proposing one look at the front of the house and
another at the back.
Public comments:
Byron and Marion Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court; adjacent property owner; noted that they have a
view to the airport and the San Mateo bridge. They are concerned with view impacts. Before
construction takes place, install story poles to show how high the building will actually be.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Requested the installation of story poles.
Suggested referral to a design reviewer.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer, and directed the applicant to
install story poles.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Discussion of motion:
■ It is unfortunate that the drawings do not clearly show the design details.
■ Massing is basically at deck level, would be surprised if there is a view impact.
■ Encouraged removal of Eucalyptus trees.
■ Erect story poles. Noted that trees can add something to views. Address design issues first.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer, with direction to the
applicant to install story poles. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:32 p.m.
10. 260 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN
REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A NEW 12,403 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KEVIN CULLINANE,
APPLICANT, KEVIN AND LISA CULLINANE, PROPERTY OWNERS; AND NILMEYER AND NILMEYER
ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director,
William Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Commission comments:
Asked for clarification regarding the location of the landscaped area on Burlingame Avenue, near El
Camino Real, is it in the right-of-way.
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
Requested clarification regarding the request for a Parking Variance.
Kevin Cullinane, 311 South Ellsworth, San Mateo and Michael Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper Avenue; represented
the applicant.
The proposed mezzanine is only to be used as a storage area for the tenant. The applicant may be
willing to consider restrictions on the use of the mezzanine.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Concerned with the proposal to install display boxes along the Burlingame Avenue fagade; it is
desirable to be able to look through windows into the store.
■ The site is underutilized with the proposed design; essentially a one-story building is proposed; if it
weren't for the parking requirement, couldn't there be office space above?
■ As the downtown plan proceeds, greater heights could be encouraged.
■ The building is handsomely designed.
Additional applicant comments:
Michael Nilmeyer showed a rendered elevation and materials board to the Commission. He
described access to parking lot at the rear. He noted that the Engineering Division preferred having
the sidewalk moved back from street on the El Camino side of the property for safety purposes.
Further Commission comments:
■ Encouraged the use of raised planters to reduce maintenance problems.
■ Requested clarification of the applicant's comments regarding the potential extension of Fox Plaza
Lane; where would a curb cut be placed?
■ Noted that customers of Walgreens use short-term parking; how will this be handled?
■ If the parking lot to the rear (adjacent to Safeway) disappeared at some point, how will parking be
handled?
■ Angled parking could help if placed on site; perhaps pull back the Burlingame Avenue elevation.
■ Asked if Walgreens (the potential tenant) accepts the proposed parking arrangement?
■ Asked why an alley is proposed between Burlingame Avenue and the rear parking; would rather see
extra square footage in store, with access from the rear.
■ Asked for clarification regarding the purpose of the entry door along El Camino.
■ Expressed concern regarding the design of the cornice line, detail as shown may not be visible.
Could it be more prominent, or replaced with a parapet that might be more visible?
■ A good mix of materials is being used in the design.
■ Is there some way to make the rear of the building look less utilitarian.
■ Would like to see some sort of photorealistic rendering from different locations.
■ ADA parking spaces are too far away from the front entrance. The entrance is the farthest point
from any parking.
■ Expressed concern regarding doors opening out onto sidewalks that may impact pedestrians.
■ Why not wait until the design of the Safeway project is known before proceeding with a proposal for
this site; the project as designed appears to rely upon access from the parking lot at the rear,
adjacent to Safeway; deferral of the matter could allow the project to mesh better with the Safeway
project design.
■ An entry from the rear of the building could be desirable.
■ Would like to see an accurate estimate of the number customers that may use the store.
• Incorporate signage into the visual analysis.
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
Clarify whether planters will be at, or above -grade.
Asked why mullion designs on windows differ.
Consider using sustainable construction techniques.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Walgreens stores typically look like prison fortresses. Concerned
that CalTrans isn't going to correct drainage problems along El Camino Real; the proposed 11-foot
setback from El Camino may not be sufficient. Was the Grand Boulevard Initiative considered in the
development of this project?
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
Requested that staff speak to Walgreens representatives to see if there are any other locations on
the peninsula that are analogous to this one in that they provide no on -site parking.
This item concluded at 10:30 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 19, 2008:
Sandra Yie and Jeff Lindstrom were appointed to the Planning Commission. Ms. Yie will fill the
unexpired term of former Commissioner (now Councilmember) Deal. Mr. Lindstrom will replace
Commissioner Osterling at the end of his current term.
Endorsed the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
FYI: 1705 Easton Drive: requested changes to a previously approved design review project:
Accepted.
Other items:
■ Chair Cauchi and Commissioner Terrones will serve as the Planning Commission's representatives
to the Walk of Fame committee.
■ Staff was requested to agendize an oral report from Commissioner Brownrigg regarding the status
of the Safeway Working Group's efforts.
■ It was requested that that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee discuss the regulations
related to front porches in an effort to encourage their construction, particularly on existing homes,
without necessitating the need for a Variance when they encroach into a required setback.
■ It was suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee revisit the 12-foot plate rule.
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 25, 2008
Chair Cauchi noted that subcommittee assignments will be revisited once the new Commissioners
are seated.
The Commission was encouraged to consider revisiting its policy with respect to vinyl windows;
there may be instances where a vinyl window can be installed that will meet the design
requirements of the Commission while providing this option for applicants.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
17